IMPORTANT POINT
When there was no signed assessment order or assessment form the Tribunal rightly held that there was no valid assessment on an HUF for the A.Y. 1955-56 and High Court was in error in holding that the findings of the Tribunal on record were perverse .

JUDGEMENT

Bharucha, J.-This is an appeal by special leave. The order that is impugned was passed by the High Court at Calcutta in an income-tax referecne. The questions that the High Court was called upon to answer were :

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid assessment on an H.U.F. for the assessment year 1955-56?

2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments for 1958-59 to 1962-63 in the status of H.U.F. are vaild ?"

2. The reference related to Assessment Years 1958-59 to 1962-63, the relevant previous years whereof were B.S. years 1364 to 1368. The assessee was Rash Behari Das Burman, who was governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this decision to go into his family history, which is referred to both in the Statement of Case placed before the High Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court. What we now set out is what is relevant and it is taken from the Statement of Case. For the Assessment Year 1955-56 the assessee submitted a return dated 14th November, 1957, describing himself as the karta of his H.U.F. An assessment was said to have been made on the H.U.F. The assessment order on the record of the Revenue bears no signature. There is no signed copy of the assessment form. There is a demand noticed dated 10th April, 1958 with some initial or signature on it. According to the assessee, neither the statutory notices nor the demand notice nor the assessment order had been received. On the record there is an acknowledgement slip bearing the date 25th April, 1958 signed by one Phool Singh. According to the assessee, there was no such person who had any authority to receive any notice on his behalf. There was no material to show that the demand raised in the demand notice had been paid by the assessee.

3. The assessee filed a partition suit (bearing No. 665 of 1955 in the Calcutta High Court). a settlement was arrived at. The properties were to be divided by metes and bounds, but that remained to be done when the Statement of Case was drawn by the Tribunal.

4. For the Assessment Years 1956-57 to 1961-62, no notices were issued to the H.U.F. under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Similarly, for the Assessment Year 1962-63, no notice was issued to the H.U.F. under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income from the properties which were covered by the partition suit were returned by and assessed in the hands of the erstwhile members of the H.U.F.

5. The Income Tax Officer thereafter took proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and concluded that the assessee s H.U.F. had escaped assessment; this was on the basis that no genuine partition had taken place and that the assessee had made a return which misrepresented the facts. The I.T.O. started proceedings under Section 148 for the Assessment Years 1958-59 to 1961-62 and under Section 139(2) for the Assessment Year 1962-63. The assessee filed nil returns under protest. The I.T.O. rejected the assesee a contention and made assessments on the H.U.F. The assessee appealed but, except for certain reductions in the quantum, the orders of the I.T.O. were affirmed.

6. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The assessee urged that during the relevant assessment years there was no H.U.F. and no valid proceedings there against could be taken. It was also urged that the H.U.F. had never been assessed and that, therefore, there was no reason to make an application under Section 25A of the 1922 Act. On behalf of the Revenue it was submitted that there was an assessment on the H.U.F. as was clear from the order for A.Y. 1955-56 and that, so long as that assessment stood, it was permissible to proceed against the H.U.F. for the H.U.F. was presumed to exist until an order un