JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue and the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court, which reads as under : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share of profit from Shiv Shankar Soap Factory arising to the assessee's wife, Smt. Pushpa Devi, did not arise from the assets transferred directly or indirectly to Smt. Pushpa Devi by the assessee and, therefore, the said share of profit was not includible in the assessee's income under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74 ?" 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessee's wife, Smt. Pushpa Devi, became a partner in a partnership firm known as Shiv Shankar Soap Factory. The capital invested by Smt. Pushpa Devi came out of funds, gifted to her by her husband, the present assessee. Smt. Pushpa Devi was a sleeping partner. The Income-tax Officer clubbed the profit arising to Smt. Pushpa Devi in the income of her husband in terms of Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, as it then stood. 3. The assessee, against the order of the Income-tax Officer, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who found that the Income-tax Officer has not been able to establish that the share income arose to Smt. Pushpa Devi because of her investment of capital in the firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court given in the case of CIT v. Jwalaprasad Agarwala [1967] 66 ITR 154 and CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh [1970] 77 ITR 27 and on that basis, he deleted the wife's income from the assessee's assessment. This action of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Tribunal. Hence, an application was moved by the Revenue for making a reference to this court and, accordingly, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question for answer of this court. 4. We have gone through the orders of the three authorities below and found that it is an essential question of fact that whether Smt. Pushpa Devi's income could be clubbed with the income of her husband or not. 4. We have gone through the orders of the three authorities below and found that it is an essential question of fact that whether Smt. Pushpa Devi's income could be clubbed with the income of her husband or not. According to the findings of the two authorities below, the Income-tax Officer has failed to establish that the share income which arose to Smt. Pushpa Devi because of her investment of capital in the firm belonged to her husband. It has not been established that the contribution of capital was a must in this case for becoming a partner in the firm. Learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the terms of the deed of partnership and Clause 3 which says that the capital contribution of the parties towards the capital of the firm shall be according to the respective resources of the parties and needs of the firm. By this, it does not mean that each of the partners had to make a contribution. Both the authorities below have found that factually no evidence has been produced to show whether any money has been invested by Smt. Pushpa Devi or not. From these circumstances, we are of the opinion that on the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities below, there is no reason to take a different view in the matter. Hence, we answer this reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.