S.K. Mal Lodha, J.
1. These seven reference applications detailed in schedule ' A ' will be disposed of by a common order as they were heard together.
2. These reference applications relate to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1972-73. The Wealth-tax Officer passed the assessment orders under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (' the Act' herein), in respect of the assessment years 1966-67 to 1972-73. He included the wealth belonging to unseparated coparceners, Narain Lal and Onkar Lal, in the assets of the family. The assessee, M/s. Vardhichand Pannalal, Udaipur, filed appeals against the assessment orders of the Wealth-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeals filed by the assessee. In view of the finding of the Tribunal in the matter and also as held earlier in Appeal No. 1035/76-77 in its order dated July 14, 1977, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner opined that the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in including the wealth belonging to Onkarlal and Narain Lal in the hands of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was further of the view that the wealth belonging to Vardhichand was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In view of this, he deleted the addition. Six appeals were filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by a consolidated order passed in the six appeals, dismissed them by its order dated March 20, 1979. Applications under Section 27(1) of the Act were filed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated September 29, 1979, dismissed them holding that the question proposed by the Department is not a fit question of law so as to refer it to this court for answer.
3. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax has filed these reference applications under Section 27(3) of the Act.
4. We have heard Mr. J.L. Daga, for the Revenue and Mr. Rajesh Balia, for the assessee.
5. The question proposed by the Department in the application under Section 27(1) of the Act and which has also been stated in para. 6 of the reference application under Section 27(3) of the Act reads as under :
' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital of Svs. Narainlal and Omkarlal in the firms, M/s. Vardhichand Paonalal, M/s. Curios House and M/s. Vardhichand & Sons, and the value of their immovable properties are not includible in the net wealth of the assessee-Hindu undivided family, M/s. Vardhichand Pannalal, and in thus upholding the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner '
6. After referring to the orders passed in I.T.A. No. 1276 to 1281/JP/72-73, the appellant, M/s. Vaidhichand Pannalal and I.T.A. Nos. 1312 and 1313, Shri Vardhicliand, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated as under in its order dated March 20, 1979 :
' The Tribunal held after examining the facts of the case in detail that the correct status of Shri Vardhichand was that of a Hindu undivided family and that the firm was genuine as the partners, Svs. Onkarlal and Narainlal, were genuine partners and that they had also contributed their individual capital during the accounting years corresponding to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, inasmuch as the shares received by them from the firm from the assessment years 1956-57 onwards up to assessment year 1966-67, had been claimed by them as their individual income and had been assessed by the Department as their individual income and the said assessment orders had become final and that the family was left with no legal remedy against the income which Sri Onkarlal and Shri Narainlal were all along enjoying as their respective property and that, therefore, the said property belonged to them as their individual property and it was this property which they had brought in as their capital into the firm and that, therefore, it was not correct to say that the said partners had supplied their capital to the firm in respect of the years under appeal. The Tribunal further held that the properties which the two partners, Svs. Onkarlal and Narain Lal, had acquired after withdrawing their funds from the firm were their individual properties and that the funds of the Hindu undivided family were not invested therein. As stated, this has been the consistent stand taken by the Tribunal right from the assessment year 1967-68 in the income-tax assessment.'
7. A perusal of the order dated March 20, 1979, of the Tribunal clearly shows that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact:
1. That the correct status of Vardhichand was that of Hindu undivided family,
2. That the firm was genuine as the partners, Onkarlal and Narainlal, were genuine partners, and that the aforesaid two partners have contributed their individual capital during the accounting years corresponding to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, and the shares received by them from the firm during the assessment years 1956-57 to 1966-67 were their individual income.
3. This income was assessed by the taxing authorities as their individual income and those assessment orders have become final.
4. That Onkarlal and Narain Lal acquired the properties from the aforesaid individual income and they have been enjoying those properties as their individual personal property.
5. This property was contributed by them in the shape of capital inthe firm and so it cannot be said that no capital was supplied by Onkarlaland Narainlal (partners) to the firm in respect of the assessment years inquestion.
6. That Onkarlal and Narainlal acquired the property after withdrawing their share income from the firm and the funds were contributed to their individual properties for at no point of time during the assessment years in question, they were invested by them with the funds of the Hindu undivided family.
8. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal for 1972-73 on September 9, 1980.
9. It is not the case of the Revenue before us that these findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal stand vitiated on the ground which is permissible in law to vitiate such findings of fact. From the aforesaid findings, which are mentioned hereinabove, no question of law arises so as to give a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law. It may be mentioned that the question which has been suggested by the Department in the application under Section 27(3) is based on the assessment that the capital of Narainlal and Onkarlal in the firms, M/s. Vardhichand Pannalal, M/s. Curios House and M/s. Vardhichand and Sons, and the value of their immovable properties are to be included in the net wealth of the assessee-Hindu undivided family, M/s. Vardhichand Pannalal. As stated above, no such finding has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this regard. A direction under Section 256(2) can only be made when a question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal under consideration. No such question of law, as suggested by the Department, in our opinion, can be said to have arisen out of the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated March 20, 1979, and order dated September 9, 1980.
10. It was held in CIT v. Heeralal Maliram , by a Division Bench of this court that where the Appellate Tribunal accepts the version of a member of a Hindu undivided family that the member had sources of income with which he could purchase certain property and so that property cannot be said to be belonging to the joint family, that finding is a finding of fact and the Tribunal cannot be directed to state the case to the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
11. The aforesaid decision is nearer to the point. Learned counsel for the Revenue invited our attention to V.D. Dhanwatey v. CIT : 68ITR365(SC) , Sudhakar Manibhai & Kulinsingh Manibhai v. CWT : 111ITR384(Guj) , Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO : 116ITR646(All) , CIT v. Coochbehar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.  120 ITR 536 and CIT v. Satyanarayan Sikaria, , in support of the contention that from the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, a question of law does arise.
12. We have carefully considered the aforesaid decisions relied on by Mr. Daga and have no hesitation to say that they are of no assistance in the facts and circumstances of the cases at hand.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law suggested by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax in his applications under Section 27(3) of the Act. The reference applications are accordingly dismissed.
14. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.