Judgment :- K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In computing the income for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the residential status of the assessee as a resident but not ordinarily resident as taken in the income-tax assessment and consequently denied the claim for exemption of foreign wealth from wealth-tax. On appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that in the income-tax assessment claimed by the assessee that he was a resident but not ordinarily resident, had been accepted and, therefore, the following question has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the status of the assessee was resident, but not ordinarily resident ?" The advocate for the Revenue has submitted that a similar question came for consideration in the case of V. E. Periannan v. CWT, wherein this court, after discussing the relevant provision, came to the conclusion that a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if he, or either of his parents or grandparents, was born in undivided India. "The reference to the place of birth cannot apply to a Hindu undivided family and it is not possible to extend to the word 'person' as meaning of every member of a Hindu undivided family. The Hindu undivided family being outside the scope of the Explanation in the context in which the word 'person' is used in this provision, a Hindu undivided family cannot be regarded as a person for the purposes of section 5(1)(xxxiii) and cannot claim exemption under that provision." The facts on hand are similar to the case that has been decided by this court, in the abovesaid case and, therefore, we answer the question referred to us, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.