JUDGMENT : Y.B. Bhatt, J. The present reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises the following question for our consideration : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from the partnership share in the firm of Messrs. Hemant Brothers was includible in the total income of the assessee in his individual capacity and not in the total income of the Hindu undivided family ?" 2. The relevant and pertinent facts which are required to be considered and on which there is no controversy are as under : One Hemantkumar Chimanlal was a partner in a firm by the name of Messrs. Hemant Brothers in his individual capacity, up to October 30, 1970. On October 31, 1970, havala entries were passed in the books of account of three separate entities, viz., in the account books of Hemantkumar Chimanlal as an individual, in the account books of Hemantkumar Chimanlal Hindu undivided family, and in the account books of Messrs. Hemant Brothers, i.e., the firm. It may be noted that October 31, 1970, the day on which these havala entries were passed was the first day of Samvat year 2027. 3. We find that all the entries are consistent and permit only one conclusion, viz., that Hemantkumar Chimanlal who had a share of 0.38 paise in a rupee in the firm of Messrs. Hemant Brothers in his individual capacity, closed the same and introduced in his place as partner of the firm, himself in the capacity of karta of the Hindu undivided family. This was done by withdrawing the amount of Rs. 43,645 standing to his credit (by a debit entry passed in the account books of the firm). By an almost identical entry passed in the books of account of the Hindu undivided family, this amount of Rs. 43,645 was credited to the account of Hemantkumar Chimanlal, which in fact went to reduce his debt due and payable to the Hindu undivided family. By a further and almost identical entry, the firm credited in its own books, the account of the Hindu undivided family by this amount of Rs. 43,645, whereas the Hindu undivided family in its own books of account, debited the account of the firm by the same amount. 4. By a further and almost identical entry, the firm credited in its own books, the account of the Hindu undivided family by this amount of Rs. 43,645, whereas the Hindu undivided family in its own books of account, debited the account of the firm by the same amount. 4. Perhaps the concept of detriment to the Hindu undivided family and throwing into the hotchpotch has been unnecessarily brought in or has been considered by the Tribunal merely because the entries in question were havala entries. We have no doubt whatsoever that had these transactions been in cash and had the said entries reflected such cash transactions, the said concepts would not have entered into the picture at all. 5. It may also be noted here that the amount of Rs. 43,645 withdrawn by Hemantkumar Chimanlal (as an individual) from the firm by the debit entry represented his capital, share in the firm, interest due and other sundry amounts. On the other hand, the identical amount credited in the books of account in the name of the Hindu undivided family represented only the capital brought in by the Hindu undivided family. 6. It may also be noted that, by an agreement dated April 1, 1971, which was a tripartite agreement between the individual, the Hindu undivided family and the firm, the Hindu undivided family brought in further assets to the tune of about Rs. 1.63 lakhs in the form of land and buildings, which were not only to be treated as assets of the firm, but the income thereof was also to be treated as income of the firm. This was not an independent transaction which took place on April 1, 1971, but was in furtherance of the fact that all the parties concerned had understood the havala entries of October 31, 1970, in their correct perspective, and had acted upon the said havala entries, as the karta of the Hindu undivided family had become a partner in the firm of Messrs. Hemant Brothers with effect from October 31, 1970. In other words, the agreement dated April 1, 1971, and the action of the Hindu undivided family in bringing in further assets to the firm by way of additional capital only add further corroboration to the intention of the parties to replace the individual, as a partner, by the karta of the Hindu undivided family. 7. In other words, the agreement dated April 1, 1971, and the action of the Hindu undivided family in bringing in further assets to the firm by way of additional capital only add further corroboration to the intention of the parties to replace the individual, as a partner, by the karta of the Hindu undivided family. 7. have keeping in mind the fact that the entries have not been doubted and have been accepted, there cannot be any doubt that on October 31, 1970, viz., the first day of the Samvat year 2027, Hemantkumar Chimanlal as an individual was replaced as a partner in the firm of Messrs. Hemant Brothers by Hemantkumar Chimanlal representing the Hindu undivided family as karta thereof. 8. In short, the net outcome of these transactions can be regarded in fact and in law in only one manner, i.e., the karta representing the Hindu undivided family became a partner in the firm with effect from October 31, 1970, replacing the individual. Obviously, therefore, the share of Hemantkumar Chimanlal in the net income of the firm would be in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family and not in his individual capacity. In this view of the matter, the share in the taxable profit of the firm in respect of Samvat year 2027 (the accounting period beginning October 31, 1970) cannot be treated as the income of Hemantkumar Chimanlal as an individual. 9. The question presented to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.