JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that, in spite of the partition effective on May 21, 1962, there was a Hindu undivided family of Shri Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Patel and his unmarried daughter and consequently addition of gift amount in the wealth of the assessee individual was not justified is correct in law ?" 2. Prior to partition on May 21, 1962, the joint family of Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Patel consisted of Gordhanbhai, his wife, his five sons and one unmarried daughter. The joint family properties were partitioned on May 21, 1962, and in that partition, Gordhanbhai, his wife and five sons were given their shares. However, no provision was made for the unmarried daughter. Gordhanbhai had made a gift of Rs. 75,001 on October 20, 1966, to the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and his unmarried daughter. The Wealth-tax Officer added the sum of Rs. 75,001 to the wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 on the ground that the Hindu undivided family to whom the said sum was gifted by the assessee did not exist, as there was a partition on May 21, 1962. For that reason, he also added Rs. 86,250 to the wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee had contended before the Wealth- tax Officer that as no provision was made for the unmarried daughter, the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his unmarried daughter continued in spite of that partition. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept this contention and passed the order accordingly. Against these orders passed separately for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the assessee preferred two separate appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, two contentions were raised. One was regarding inclusion of annuity deposit in the net wealth, with which we are not concerned in this reference, and the other was in respect of inclusion of the value of the gifts made to the Hindu undivided family. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, two contentions were raised. One was regarding inclusion of annuity deposit in the net wealth, with which we are not concerned in this reference, and the other was in respect of inclusion of the value of the gifts made to the Hindu undivided family. The appeals were allowed so far as the inclusion of the annuity deposits in the net wealth were concerned, but they were dismissed in so far as they pertained to the gifts made to the Hindu undivided family. The assessee, therefore, preferred two appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that, in spite of the partition, there was a Hindu undivided family of Shri Gordhanbhai Patel and his unmarried daughter. It, therefore, allowed both the appeals. The Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, preferred to file reference applications before the Tribunal and called upon the Tribunal to refer the following two questions to this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that, in spite of the partition effective on May 21, 1962, there was a Hindu undivided family of Shri Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Patel and his unmarried daughter and consequently addition of gift amount in the wealth of the assessee individual was not justified is correct in law ? 2. Whether a Hindu undivided family which is a creature of law is once partitioned and its claim is accepted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can revive by mutual agreement between the erstwhile members of the Hindu undivided family ?" 3. The Tribunal, however, thought it fit to refer question No. 1 only to this court. 4. What is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue is that, on partition of the joint family property on May 21, 1962, the Hindu undivided family of Gordhanbhai Patel came to an end as all the persons who had right in the joint family property were given their share in the property. He submitted that as the members of the family became separate in estate, the family thereafter ceased to be joint. It is no doubt true that where there is no joint estate, the family ceases to be joint. He submitted that as the members of the family became separate in estate, the family thereafter ceased to be joint. It is no doubt true that where there is no joint estate, the family ceases to be joint. As a result of partition, the larger family of Gordhanbhai Patel consisting of his wife and his five sons and unmarried daughter did cease to exist after May 21, 1962, but that is not the question with which we are concerned in the reference. The gift was made, according to the assessee, to the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his unmarried daughter. These gifts have been included in the net wealth of the assessee on the ground that the Hindu undivided family to which the said gifts were made in fact did not exist when the gifts were made in view of the partition which had taken place in 1962. 5. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190, the expression "Hindu undivided family" in the Wealth- tax Act, 1957, is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is understood in the personal law of the Hindus. Under the Hindu system of law, a joint family may consist of a single male member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme of the Wealth-tax Act to suggest that a Hindu undivided family as an assessable unit must consist of at least two male members. The Supreme Court has further observed therein that it is only by analysing the nature of the rights of the members of the undivided family, both those in being and those yet to be born, that it can be determined whether the family property can properly be described as" joint property" of the undivided family. It is not in dispute that the property which went to Gordhanbhai was a part of the joint family property and that he got the share as a coparcener. It is not in dispute that the property which went to Gordhanbhai was a part of the joint family property and that he got the share as a coparcener. As held by the Supreme Court in that case, when the coparcener having a wife and two minor daughters and no son received his share of the joint family property on partition, such property in the hands of the coparcener belonged to the Hindu undivided family of himself, his wife and minor daughters and could not be assessed as his individual property for the purposes of wealth-tax. 6. In L. Hirday Narain v. ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 (SC), the facts were that Hirday Narain and his five sons were members of a Hindu undivided family. Till the assessment year 1950-51, the income received by Hirday Narain was assessed to tax as the income of a Hindu undivided family. In November, 1949, the property of the joint family was partitioned between Hirday Narain and his sons and in assessing the income for the assessment year 1951-52, the Income-tax Officer recorded an order that the property was partitioned, but he still assessed the income received by Hirday Narain as income of a Hindu undivided family. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner treated the income received from October 1, 1949, to November 18, 1949, as income of the former Hindu undivided family and directed that it be "excluded from the assessment". Pursuant to that order, the Income-tax Officer made two orders of assessment - assessing the income received from October 1, 1949, to November 18, 1949, as income of the Hindu undivided family of Hirday Narain and his five sons and for assessing the income of Rs. 1,06,156 also as income of the Hindu undivided family and liable to tax in the hands of Hirday Narain under section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 7. Hirday Narain then applied for rectification of a mistake in the order of assessment which he claimed was apparent from the record as section 16(3)(a)(ii) does not apply to cases of Hindu undivided families. The assessee's request was not accepted and ultimately the matter went to the Supreme Court. 7. Hirday Narain then applied for rectification of a mistake in the order of assessment which he claimed was apparent from the record as section 16(3)(a)(ii) does not apply to cases of Hindu undivided families. The assessee's request was not accepted and ultimately the matter went to the Supreme Court. On considering the effect of the partition, the Supreme Court observed that there was in fact an existing Hindu undivided family of which, for a part of the period, Hirday Narain and his wife were members, and for the rest, besides the two, their infant son was a member. It may be stated that the son was born after the partition. The Supreme Court thus held that, after partition of the larger undivided Hindu family of Hirday Narain which consisted of himself and his five sons, a smaller Hindu undivided family, consisting of himself and his wife, came into existence and after the son was born to them, it consisted of Hirday Narain, his wife and the infant son. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue that when there is complete partition, no further Hindu undivided family can come into existence cannot be accepted. There can be no doubt that the larger Hindu undivided family will come to an end but that would not mean that a smaller Hindu undivided family of a coparcener who receives the share in the coparcenary property cannot come into existence thereafter. 8. This court in CIT v. Ramanlal Nagindas Shah [1992] 195 ITR 9, has observed that it is the settled legal position that where the property was originally owned by coparceners and later devolved on a sole surviving coparcener, as also where such property on partition came to be allocated to a single coparcener who had female members in the family, it has to be assessed in the hands of such sole surviving coparcener or the sole coparcener as a Hindu undivided family. Therefore, it will have to be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that, in spite of partition, there was a Hindu undivided family of Gordhanbhai Patel and his unmarried daughter and consequently the gifts made to the Hindu undivided family could not have been included in the wealth of the assessee. 9. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 9. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.