Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. This is a reference under Sec. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family in respect of the income from securities at Rs. 21,922 and from house property at Rs. 13,128 ?" 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the question referred are as follows : The assessee derives income from various sources. This reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. Till the preceding assessment year, the assessee had been showing his entire income in the status of an individual. This year, for the first time, the income from Government securities and that from house properties being Rs, 21,922 and Rs. 13,128 respectively, were shown in a separate return filed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The plea for doing so was that the income from the aforesaid two sources pertained to the erstwhile impartible estate which had been inherited by the assessee and after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the impartible estate governed by the lineal primogeniture disappeared. Thus, all the incidents of a joint Hindu family property became operative. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the asses-see. The assessee having failed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee and excluded Rs. 35,050 holding that to be the income of a Hindu undivided family. 3. Mr. S. K. Sharan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that, in view of the decision of this court in CIT V/s. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo [1982] 133 ITR 658, the Tribunal has erred in treating the aforesaid two items bf income as that of a Hindu undivided family of the assessee. 4. On the other hand, Mr. 3. Mr. S. K. Sharan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that, in view of the decision of this court in CIT V/s. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo [1982] 133 ITR 658, the Tribunal has erred in treating the aforesaid two items bf income as that of a Hindu undivided family of the assessee. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad No. II, Senior Advocate appearing for the assessee, has relied on a subsequent Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT V/s. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo [1986] 157 ITR 358, wherein it has been held that the issue has been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Sundari V/s. Laxmi, AIR 1980 SC 198 , but the same was not brought to the notice of their Lordships in the above-referred Patna case and therefore the view taken in this case cannot be held to have laid down the correct law in this regard. 5. After giving due consideration to the provisions of Sec. 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as also to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it has been held by his Lordship Uday Sinha J., in the subsequent Patna case, CIT V/s. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo [1986] 157 ITR 358, that the income-tax pertaining to the impartible estate, which has been inherited by the assessee, has to be assessed in his hands in the status of a Hindu undivided family because impartibility of the estate of the assessee disappeared after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, such estate became a part of the Hindu undivided family of the assessee. 6. Respectfully following the view taken by this court in CIT V/s. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo [1986] 157 ITR 358, 365, I hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 7. G.G. Sohani, C.J. I agree.