A. Raghuvir, C. J. — This Reference is made under the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of tie Commissioner of Income-tax, North Eastern Region. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of four partners, on; among the four is Din Dayal Jain. The firm paid to Dindayal Jain Rs. 2, 340/-in the relevant assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 2,864/- in the assessment year 1979-80, Rs. 4,032/-in the assessment year 1980-81 and Rs. 4,924/-in the assessment year 1981-82. These four amounts were the interest amounts paid on investments. The firm sought deduction of the four amounts as they were paid to the Hindu Undivided Family of which Dindayal Jain is the Karta. These four amounts were not paid to a partner of the firm. The Income-Tax Officer rejected the claim. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the deductions. Thereafter the following question is referred to be answered by this Court for the four assessment years: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that where the assessee-partner is representing his HUF in the firm, interest paid by the firm on individual investments made in the firm does not attract the provisions of section 40 (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Conceptually a Hindu Undivided Family is not a juristic person and in that sense is not sui juris. (The Latin phrase means on his own right or is not subject to legal disability like infancy, mental disorder or is under the power of a guardian and can manage its affairs). In the Income-tax Act of 1961 Hindu Undivided Family is defined to be a person therefore is a unit of assessment. The incidents of Hindu Undivided Family in numerous cases were spelt out to mean HUF acts through Karta and cannot enter into an agreement with any individual. But, can be a partner in a firm and cannot exercise all rights of a partner under the Partnership Act. A coparcener of HUF can lay claim against the Karta for monies, received on behalf of HUF. The coparceners of HUF are not considered partners of a firm. But, can be a partner in a firm and cannot exercise all rights of a partner under the Partnership Act. A coparcener of HUF can lay claim against the Karta for monies, received on behalf of HUF. The coparceners of HUF are not considered partners of a firm. These attributes that HUF is not a juristic person at the same time is a unit of assessment and that HUF can be a partner but the constituent co-partners are not partners and that the Karta is accountable to coparceners may sound esoteric. But all these are real in the fiscal world. These aspects demonstrate the breadth of accession which is provided by the Karta to HUF. This elucidation is sufficient now here the rest may have to be dealt in Hindu law in a case relating to Mitakshara. Similar questions as in the instant case often are raised under two provisions of the Act one under clause (b) of section 40 and the other is a cognate question that arise under clause (1) of section 64 of the Act. To obviate the difficulties the Board on August 11,1976 in Instruction No. 997 recounted the disputes under the former that arise intermittently and recited that amounts to individual partners received on behalf of the HUF and received in the capacity of a partner have to be distinguished. The Board specified if amounts are paid to HUF in that case are to be deducted. In a Reference case under the Income-tax Act, on September 22,1989 in Income-tax Reference No. 5/83, this Court dealt the cognate case under section 64 of the Act. Dr. B. P. Saraf, J. speaking for the Bench posed the following question in para 11 of that decision : "We may now turn to the next question and decide whether for the purpose of assessment and levy of income tax the Act recognises representative capacity of a partner. In other words, -where an individual is a partner in representative capacity as Karta of an HUF in whose hands the income from the firm will be assessable - in the hands of the individual who is a partner or the HUF whom he represents, and answered the question in para 16 thus: that literal interpretation of the word "individual" will render the Act itself unworkable. Such an interpretation is not permissible by the well accepted principles of interpretation of statutes. Such an interpretation is not permissible by the well accepted principles of interpretation of statutes. We accordingly hold that the expression individual from the membership of the partnership etc. If the income does not arise to him then the section would not apply. In case where the Karta of HUF is a partner in his representative capacity, admittedly the income does not arise to him. The income arises to the HUF and by virtue of the provisions of the Income-tax Act itself it is assessable in the hands of the HUF. The Act recognises the concept of a person being e partner in the firm in his individual capacity as well as a Karta of HUF. It is aware of the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It has clearly provided that where the Karta is a partner in a firm and it is found as a matter of fact that he is a partner representing the HUF the income arising from such partnership shall belong to the HUF and shall be assessed in the hands of the HUF. The law being so clear and explicit in regard to the dual status of an individual, we have no manner of doubt ;in our mind that section 64 (1) cannot apply to a case where an individual is a partner in a firm as Karta of his HUF." What is 'referred in the above passage as the dual capacity often bring forth of questions as in the instant case. The Allahabad High Court in a case 117 ITR 111 ( CIT vs. London Machinery Co.) recognised the dual capacity yet held amounts were paid to the Karta or to the individual deductions are not to be permitted. The following passage in the above case speaks to that effect-"In our view, the interest paid by the firm to the partner either on the amounts brought by them from their respective HUF funds, brought from their own individual funds is in either case payment of interest to the partners. The following passage in the above case speaks to that effect-"In our view, the interest paid by the firm to the partner either on the amounts brought by them from their respective HUF funds, brought from their own individual funds is in either case payment of interest to the partners. Both these kinds of payments are within the purview of section 40 (b), and are inadmissible as a deduction in the assessment of the firm." From the above passage we are impelled to conclude that the Allahabad High Court recognised the dual capacity but held amounts paid to the individual as a partner or to Karta of HUF in both the cases clause (b) of section 40 is attracted. The Circulars were referred in 159 ITR 509 (Shri Ramanjaneya Textiles vs. C1T) by the Karnataka High Court but in that case it was held the principles set out in the Circular were not called for application. In 126 ITR 654 (C1T Gujrat vs. Sajjanraj Divanchand) the Gujrat High Court accepted the dual capacity and held monies paid to HUF are to be deducted. The Bombay High Court in 146 ITR (549 C1T vs. Pannalal Hiralal & Co.) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Full Bench Case 166 ITR 534 (M. P.) (CIT vs. Narbharam Popatbhai and Sons) have held to the same effect. In 179 ITR 280 (Hindustan Steel Forgings vs. CIT) Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the three explanations incorporated by Taxation Laws Amendment Act in 1984 which came into force from April 1, 1985 and recorded a similar conclusion as in the case of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Gujarat High Court in the case cited earlier considered four Andhra Pradesh cases- 106 ITR 293 (CIT, A. P. vs. Veeraiah and K. Narasimbulu), 106 ITR 420 (Addl CIT, A. P. vs. K. G. Narayanaiab Chetty & Co.), 106 ITR 556 (Addi. CIT A. P. vs. Chinna Balaiah Chetty & Co.) and 120 ITR 502 (Terla Veeraiah vs. ClT, A. P.) In the first and fourth case the Gujarat case explained the facts of the case and the conclusion reached. In the third A. P. case HUF was held to be the creditor and amounts paid to HUF were deducted. In the second case it was held the amount was paid to the partner therefore the deduction was not allowed. In the third A. P. case HUF was held to be the creditor and amounts paid to HUF were deducted. In the second case it was held the amount was paid to the partner therefore the deduction was not allowed. As to the first and fourth case we are in agreement with the comments made by the Gujarat High Court as respects the two cases. The Gujarat High Court reconsidered its decisions in Full Bench 150 ITR 276 (Chotalal & Co. vs. CIT ) and reached the same conclusion as in the case earlier cited. In a Kerela case 73 ITR 162 ( Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Veeriah Reddiar) a' proprietor of a business contended interest paid to the proprietor is not payment to a partner of the firm. The contention in our view was correctly rejected. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Revenue urged that the Tribunal found the four amounts were paid to a partner of the firm. This contention is not well founded. The facts in the case show that ITO without any discussion rejected the claim for deduction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal over tuned the ITO's decision and allowed the claim. What does that mean ? That means the contention raised by the Revenue is not well founded on facts. For the aforesaid reasons the question is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.