This appeal involves very ticklish issue. On 30th Aug., 1982, assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 31,000 in status of specified HUF. members thereof were stated to be two brothers and ITO asked t h e assessee as to how HUF had come into existence. assessee contended that Smt. Veena Jain had gifted sum of Rs. 5,500 to assessee's HUF which consisted of two Spindas who could form joint Hindu family by themselves. ITO was however, of opinion joint family was purely creature of law and could not be created by act of parties because fundamental principle of joint family was joint status, bound be tie of Sapindaships by birth and Hindu Law did not recognise any HUF of kind propounded by assessee because any such group of members could not bring into existence new HUF. They were already members of bigger HUF. They could form separate HUF only on partition. If assessee's arguments were to be accepted, there would be innumerable HUFs formed by permutations and combinations which were not permissible in Hindu Law. assessee could be considered to be AOP's and since they had got gift from sister and remaining running business, income earned could be assessed in status of AOP. He, therefore, assessed in capacity of HUF observing that income earned by assessee would be liable to be clubbed in hands of two members in their individual incomes. appeals of assessee was dismissed by AAC. assessee has consequently come up in second appeal before Tribunal. I have heard representative of parties at length in this appeal. main reliance of assessee's representative was that there could be smaller HUF within larger HUF which could hold property as unit to exclusion of larger family and separate property of any larger family could be impressed with character of joint family property of smaller family. For this purpose, reliance was placed upon decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Hanumant Rao vs. CWT (1967) 65 ITR 586 (AP). Next it was contended that pre-existence of nucleous of joint family property was not necessary so that self-acquired property could be thrown into family hotch potch and reliance was placed on CIT vs. Bhikraj Jaipuria 1978 CTR (Cal) 162: (1979) 119 ITR 883 (Cal). Another authority quoted for this purpose was CIT vs. P.N. Talukdar (1982) 135 ITR 623 (Cal). Lastly reliance was placed upon Madras High Court in Satendra Kumar vs. CIT (1981) 24 CTR (Mad) 28: (1983) ITR 840 (Mad) for proposition that property acquired by gift from female could be HUF property in hands of donees. I have carefully considered all these authorities and to my mind, there is no force in contention raised by assessee before me. basic issue for consideration is as to whether there had been joint Hindu family in manner in which it is propounded by assessee in present case. joint Hindu family consists of father sons, grand sons or great-grandsons, There is gemsimigieal tree treat and family cannot come into existence by mere act of parties. In written submissions made by assessee to AAC at p. 2 it was itself been stated that joint family is purely creature of law and cannot be created by act of parties, It is only incidentally stated in all authorities on subject that fundamental principle of joint family is tie of Spindaship arising by birth, marriage or adoption. This, however, does not mean that any two spindas can form joint family if they desire. Spinda relationship can be there between remote collaterals. But they do not normally form joint family. In fact, joint family consists of father and his children. It is only when there is partition between father and his sons that two sons can choose to remain joint inter se. In other words, there cannot be joint family of two brothers who are themselves members of joint family alongwith their father. To be more precise, Hindu Law never contemplated partial partition resulting in multiple HUFs. Some how or other, IT Authorities have chosen to recognise partial partition, but even that has been done away with insertion of sub-s. 9 in s. 171 of IT Act. In Hindu Law as such either assessee joint family or there were separate coparceners and mere intention on part of one coparcener was sufficient to disrupt family. cases of partitial partition on Hindu Law were really cases of assumed partition and re-union. It was quite possible that family of assessees first separated so that assessee's separation from their father and then two brothers could re-unite to form joint family. They cannot possibly form joint family while still remaining joint with their own father. Every two spindas would not form joint family merely because they hold property jointly. However this is not stage for me to express any final opinion on this matter. ITO has only observed that assessment is made on assessee on protective basis as per returned filed by it. He proposed to add income earned by assessee in income of members of family in their individual capacity. It is then that question as to whether income is liable to be added in their hands would be finally settled at present, assessment has been made on basis of return filed by assessee and obviously assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved by this order of ITO. Therefore, no appeal at all lies in matter. With these remarks, I dismiss this appeal. *** RAJEEV KUMAR SANJEEV KUMAR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER