S. C. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 27 (3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"), to this court:"if there was no Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his wife at the relevant time whether the assessee was liable to be assessed as individual in respect of the value of the 5,000 shares in Hindus-than Aluminium Corporation Ltd. ?" ( 2 ) THE reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73, for which the corresponding valuation date is March 31, 1972. ( 3 ) THE case arises out of an order of the Tribunal dated March 26, 1975. ( 4 ) IN an application made by the Commissioner under Section 27 (1), the Tribunal had earlier referred the following question to this court:"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the value of 3,000 shares of Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. gifted to the Hindu undivided family of the assessee and his wife could not be property of the assessee who was an individual and, hence, could not be included in the assessee's net wealth ?" ( 5 ) THE question is the subject-matter of another pending reference, being Matter No. 219 of 1977, which is appearing in today's list. ( 6 ) THE brief facts of the case, as stated by the Tribunal in the statement of case, are as follows : the assessee is an individual. The assessee's father-in-law, as the karta of a Hindu undivided family, gave 3,000 shares of Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. valued at Rs. 74,860 by a letter dated March 7, 1972, for the benefit of the assessee's Hindu undivided family, consisting of himself and his wife. The Income-tax Officer took into consideration these shares in computing the assessee's net valuation of wealth. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, before whom it was contended that the value of the shares should not be included in the assessee's net wealth because the shares were given by way of gift to the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was a member. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. He held that there was no Hindu undivided family in existence at the time of the gift and the Income-tax Officer was justified in including the value of 3,000 shares of Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. in the net wealth of the assessee. ( 7 ) ON further appeal, the Tribunal held that what was important to note in this case was that a person could be assessed as a Hindu undivided family only in respect of his ancestral property. The Tribunal found that the assessee and his wife had not received any ancestral property. The gift of the shares was made by the assessee's father-in-law on behalf of his own Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal considered the question as to whether the assessee could be the owner of the shares, which admittedly had been gifted by the Birla family to the undivided family of the assessee consisting of himself and his wife. The Tribunal found that the intention of Shri Birla was to gift the shares on behalf of his family to the family of the assessee and if there was no such family in existence, the gift would obviously fail. But that fact could not make the assessee the sole owner of the gifted shares. The tribunal held that :". . . the authorities below went wrong in holding that the assessee was the owner of the shares merely because there was no Hindu undivided family of the assessee which could hold such shares. " ( 8 ) MR. Bajoria, appearing for the assessee, has drawn our attention to the case of Gowli Buddanna v. CIT, where it was held that the property of the joint family did not cease to belong to the family merely because the family was represented by a single coparcener, who possessed rights which an owner of the property might possess, and the income received therefrom was taxable as income of the Hindu undivided family. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal has found that the shares wore gifted to the family of the assessee. If there was no such family, the gift would fail. Whether the gift was made to the family or not is really a question of fact. No question has been raised in this reference challenging that finding of fact made by the Tribunal. If there was no such family, the gift would fail. Whether the gift was made to the family or not is really a question of fact. No question has been raised in this reference challenging that finding of fact made by the Tribunal. If a gift is made to a Hindu undivided family and if there is no such Hindu undivided family in existence, then the gift will fail and a person who has not been given these shares as an individual cannot claim these shares as his own. If the gift fails, whatever is transferred, will revert back to the donor. ( 10 ) THE question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.