Judgment :- 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Cochin Bench has under S.256(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 referred the following question for our opinion: 'Whether. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal was right in holding that the H.U.F. of Shanti lal C. Shah got partitioned with effect from 1-12-1976 and that the income of the erstwhile family is to be assessed in the hands of the members of the Family?" 2. The assessment year in question is 1978-79. The assessee Shantilal C. Shah had been assessed as an individual. The H.U.F. of the assessee was a partner in the firm of M/s. Anandji. The Income-tax Officer included in the income of the assessee a sum of Rs. 3.830/- as this share in the income of the Hindu Undivided Family from the firm. rejecting the contention of the assessee that the income from the firm was assessable only in the bands of the Hindu Undivided Family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that in view of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act. 1975. which came into force with effect from 1-12-1976 there was adeemed partition of the Hindu Undivided Family and consequently the share of the assessee in the income of the Hindu Undivided Family from the firm is liable to be included in his individual assessment. On further appeal the Tribunal following its earlier decisions and the decision of this Court in the case of W.T.O. v. K. Madhavan Nambiar. W.A. No. 159 of 1981. held that the H.U.F. should be deemed to have been partitioned with effect from 1-12-1976 and that the assessee's share in the income of the H.U.F. from the firm is includible in the income of the assessee. 3. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that because no partition has been recorded as required under S.171 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the H. U. F. which had been hitherto assessed as H. U. F. the share income is properly assessable only in the name of the H U. F. and not in the hands of the members thereof. This contention is without noticing the effect of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act. 1975. 4. On and after 1-12-1976. no joint family existed in the State. This contention is without noticing the effect of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act. 1975. 4. On and after 1-12-1976. no joint family existed in the State. The Act is one enacted to abolish the joint family system among the Hindus in the State of Kerala. All members of an Undivided Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara law holding any coparcenary property on the day the Act came into force are thereafter deemed to hold it as tenants-in-common as if a partition had taken place among all the members of that undivided Hindu family as respects such property and as if each one of them is holding bis or her share separately as full owner thereof. There is a total annihilation of the System in the State. The properties held by the H U.P. thereafter lost the character of joint family property. and have become the individual property of the members. The individual right has also been determined as the joint tenancy has given way to tenancy-in-common. Therefore. after 1-12-1976 the individual members of the family have distinct share in the property and this change has been brought by the operation of law and not by act of parties. 5. Where joint family has ceased to exist by operation of law. the question of recording a partition as envisaged under S.171 of the Income-tax Act does not arise. That section applies only is cases where a Hindu family has been assessed as H.U.F. and a claim of partition is made subsequently. For the purpose of bringing to tax the income earned by the joint family before its disruption on partition. a fiction has been introduced in the Section that until the partition is recorded by the Income-tax Officer after enquiries. the joint family shall be deemed to continue. The machinery thus provided under S.171 is inapplicable is a case where no such partition has taken place. the family has come to an end under law. the property had devolved on the members as provided under the statute and thereby the rights have been defined and settled. In such a case if the income earned by the H.U.F. before such extinction has escaped assessment. the only course open to the assessing authority is to make a re-assessment on the family under S.147 as provided under S.283 (1) of the Act. In such a case if the income earned by the H.U.F. before such extinction has escaped assessment. the only course open to the assessing authority is to make a re-assessment on the family under S.147 as provided under S.283 (1) of the Act. That Section providing for notice in bringing to tax the income of the joint family after a partition has been recorded under S.171 should apply in such case. This view is in accord with the decision in W. A. No. 159 of 1981. 6. Notice in respect of the Hindu family has to be served on the person who was the last Manager of the Hindu family or if such a person is dead then on all adults who were members of the Hindu family immediately before the partition. The machinery is one which enables the authority to assess the income earned by the H.U.F. and after its disruption by partition. The same machinery has to be applied for bringing to tax the income of the H. U. F. after its extinction by operation of law. 7. The Income-tax Officer is. therefore. empowered to make a re-assessment in respect of the income earned by the H.U. F. upto 1-12-1976 by issuing notice to the quondam kartha in the name of the joint family. The income accruing therefore can only be assessed in the hands of the members of the family in proportion to their share. as the income of the individual members and not that of the H. U. F. In this view the proportionate share of the income that accrued to the partner as on 31-3-1977 is properly assessable in the hands of the assessee is the individual status. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was. therefore. right in holding that the share income of Shantilal C. Shah is properly assessable under the individual status. 8. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Cochin Bench.