JUDGMENT JUDGMENT This is reference at instance of Revenue under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short, " Act ") to decide following question of law: " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that property left by Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu law will devolve on his widow and not to Hindu undivided family of only separated son and thus income from dividends would be assessable in hands of Smt. Tej Kanwar and not in hands of assessee-Hindu undivided family?" question for decision in this reference is, whether Tribunal correctly held that dividend income in hands of Smt. Tej Kanwar, widow of Sohan Mal Golcha, was her absolute property and was, therefore, required to be assessed on that basis? Tribunal, placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Kanso Devi, AIR 1970 SC 1963, has held that by virtue of section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, dividend income so received by widow during relevant period was her absolute property and not that of Hindu undivided family. material facts on which question arises may now be stated. Sohan Mal Golcha initially was karta of Hindu undivided family consisting of his two sons and some other members. There was partial partition as result of which Sohan Mal Golcha separated from his sons. Thereafter, Sohan Mal Golcha constituted Hindu undivided family comprising of himself, his wife and unmarried daughter, his sons having already separated. said Sohan Mal Golcha held certain shares as individual and this is how dividend income was assessed as his individual income after partial partition. After death of Sohan Mal Golcha, his shares became property of his widow alone. question is, whether dividend income derived by his widow, Smt. Tej Kanwar, was her absolute property by virtue of section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which admittedly applies to facts of this case. Tribunal has held that dividend income during relevant period was absolute property of widow and, therefore, it had been assessed on that basis only. No infirmity in conclusions arrived at by Tribunal has been pointed out by learned counsel for Revenue. Consequently, this reference is answered against Revenue as under: Tribunal was justified in law in holding that dividend income was assessable as absolute property of Smt. Tej Kanwar, widow of Sohan Mal Golcha. No order as to costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. HARISH CHAND GOLCHA