Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The assessee is a partner, The assessee is assessed in the status of individual. For the asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the assessee is a partner of a firm styled as 'M/s Annamalayar Match Works : Sivakasi in his capacity as a 'Karta' of the HUF. His wife is also a partner in the said firm. The ITO, who completed the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years in the status of individual, included the share income arising to the assessee's wife under the provisions of s. 64 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee appealed to the AAC who allowed the appeals. The Department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also held that the provisions of s. 64 of the IT Act cannot be invoked to club the wife's income in the assessee's hand in his individual capacity. On the application filed by the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for our consideration under s. 256(1) of the IT Act. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income of the wife from the partnership firm in which the assessee is a partner as Karta of the HUF cannot be included in the income of the assessee under s. 64 of the IT Act, 1961 ?" Though the assessee has not been served, we have decided to proceed to hear the tax cases as the question seems to be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT & Ors. vs. Om Prakash & Ors. 1995 Indlaw SC 652 : 1995 Indlaw SC 652 (SC) : TC 42R.596, wherein the Supreme Court held that the share income arising to the wife cannot be included in the hands of the spouse in his individual capacity and when her spouse in a partner in a representative capacity.We have carefully gone through the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT & Ors. vs. Om Prakash & Ors. (supra). vs. Om Prakash & Ors. (supra). The Supreme Court held as under : "Where a person is a partner in a partnership firm not in his individual capacity but as the Karta of the HUF, neither the income accruing to his wife on account of her being a partner in the same partnership firm nor the income accruing to his minor children on account of their being admitted to the benefits of such partnership firm, can be included in the total income of such person in his individual assessment of the HUF". We are of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash case (supra) fully governs the facts of this case and we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal holding that the provisions of s. 64 of the IT Act cannot be invoked to club the wife's share income in the assessee's hand made in his individual capacity as he was a partner in the representative capacity in the service. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department.