Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reunion was valid and effective in respect of properties brought into the recreated joint family and, therefore, the interest amount of Rs. 29, 700 which accrued on the deposit of Rs. 1 lakh contributed by the Hindu undivided family consisting of father and son, shall be added to the income of the bigger Hindu undivided family only and not to the income of the assessee-family ?" There was a joint Hindu undivided family consisting of two coparceners, namely one A. M. Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his son V. Rajkumar. There was a total partition of the family on April 14, 1971, and the partition was accepted by the Income-tax Officer and he passed an order under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), On October 1, 1979, Vaiyapuri Chettiar and Rajkumar executed a document called "deed of declaration of reunion" by which, they have reunited constituting a Hindu undivided family. After the reunion, the father and the son brought a fixed deposit of Rs. 50, 000 each to the Hindu undivided family and declared that the joint family alone would hold the rights in respect of these assets totalling a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000. The assessee Rajkumar, as a karta of the Hindu undivided family (specified) in the return filed for the assessment year 1982-83 claimed exemption of a sum of Rs. 14, 850 on the ground that the interest earned on the deposit made by him to the bigger joint family cannot be included in the hands of the specified Hindu undivided family in which Rajkumar is the karta. The Income-tax Officer, however, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the department has not accepted the claim of reunion after the partition of the joint family. The Income-tax Officer, however, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the department has not accepted the claim of reunion after the partition of the joint family. There were appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to accept the claim of the reunion and ultimately, the matter came up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. A. M. Vaiyapuri Chettiar 1995 (215) ITR 836, 1996 (130) CTR 293, 1996 (85) TAXMAN 17 and this court held that the reunion was valid. But the entire properties of the erstwhile family prior to the partition would be the properties of the reunited joint family. The result is that after the decision of this court holding that the reunion is valid, it is not permissible for the Income-tax Officer to include the income arising out of the contribution of Rs. 50, 000 made by the assessee in the hands of the specified Hindu undivided family. The income arising out of the contribution of Rs. 50, 000 is liable to be included only in the hands of the Hindu undivided family consisting of Vaiyapuri Chettiar and Rajkumar. The Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion in holding that the reunion was valid and effective and that the income arising out of the contribution of Rs. 50, 000 cannot be included in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. Accordingly we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.