Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN J. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar was the karta. The Hindu undivided family carried on business in the sale of petroleum products. The said business was converted into a partnership firm on April 1, 1973. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 following his earlier assessment order for the assessment year 1975-76, holding that the entire business income from a partnership business which was carrying on business in petroleum products should be assessed in the total income of the Hindu undivided family of the assessee herein. This was a protective assessment. The assessee challenged the order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as before the Appellate Tribunal which held that the entire share income from the firm cannot be assessed as income of the assessee on the ground that the firm, K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar, was a genuine and valid firm and the assessee was having only 20 per cent. of the share in the said firm. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal held that the entire income of the petroleum business in the name of K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar cannot be assessed as the income of assessee but only the share income from the firm can be assessed. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal as the assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer on a protective basis and the Revenue has not accepted the order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that the firm, namely K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar, was a genuine firm. It is stated that the order of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of the firm K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar, came up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar wherein this court held that the firm is a valid and genuine firm and the firm was also entitled to registration. In view of the decision of this, court, upholding the order of the Appellate Tribunal that the firm was a genuine one, the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that the entire business income cannot to be regarded as the income of the assessee is correct. In view of the decision of this, court, upholding the order of the Appellate Tribunal that the firm was a genuine one, the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that the entire business income cannot to be regarded as the income of the assessee is correct. In other words, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that only the share income from the firm, K. T. S. Nagamanickam, was liable to be included in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us, following the earlier decision of this court in CIT v. K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar in the negative and against the Department. However, there will be no order as to costs.