An order under S. 25-A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, recording the partition of a Hindu undivided family, is effective for all subsequent years.

Judgment

SHAH, J. : Sir Chinubhai Madhavlal, Baronet, his wife Lady Tanumati and his three sons Udayan, Kirtidev and Achyut vere originally assessed to income-tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family by the First Income-tax Officer A-III Ward, Bombay. Sir Chinubhai filed suit No. 2176 of 1948 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family estate. On March 8, 1950, the High Court of Bombay passed a decree by consent declaring that as from October 15, 1947 the joint family stood dissolved and that all the members of the family had become separate in food, worship and estate from that date and that each member of the family was entitled to a fifth share in the properties movable and immoveable belonging to the family subject to the right of maintenance in favour of the mother of Sir Chinubhai. In Sch. A Part I properties which were allotted to Sir Chinubhai were set out: In Parts II and III of Sch. A properties which there collectively allotted to the share of Udayan, Kirtidev, Achyut and Lady Tanumati were set out. It was declared by the decree that the properties moveable and immovable "described in Parts II and III of Sch. A shall absolutely belong to and vest in the four defendants the three sons and Lady Tanumati "in equal shares in full satisfactions of their respective rights in the joint family properties subject, as regards the properties described in Part II of Sch. A, to the provisions of the Baronetcy Act". Schedules B. C and D set out the debts and liabilities of the joint family. Pursuant to the decree, Sir Chinubhai took his share in the properties allotted to him, separately. The other properties remained undivided between Udayan Kirtidev, Achyut and Lady Tanumati-each holding a fourth share as tenant-in-common, with the other co-sharers.

2. On December 3, 1952 Sir Chinubhai applied to the Income-tax Officer, A-III Ward, Bombay for an order recording the partitions and requesting that assessments be made of the members of the family separately in accordance with the provisions of S. 23 read with fit 25A of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer by order, dated January 6, 1953, granted the application. He observed that pursuant to the decree of the High Court for partition the properties of the "Hindu undivided family were distributed between two groups-one consisting of Sir Chinubhai and the other consisting of his wife and his three sons", and since all the conditions of S. 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act had been satisfied, "from 8th March l950 the Hindu undivided family is deemed to have been partitioned and assessment subsequent to that date will be made on the two groups separately". The Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad, thereafter assessed Lady Tanumati and the sons of Sir Chinubhai separately.

3. The Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad, however, initiated proceedings under S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1951-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54 for assessing the Hindu undivided family of the four members "Udayan, Kirtidev, Achyut and Lady Tanumati" - who will hereinafter collectively be called "the assessees" on the plea that the income of the family had escaped assessment. The assessees contended that they did not in the years of assessment referred to in the notice constitute a Hindu undivided family and the Income-tax Officer had no power, after the order passed on January 6, 1953, to assess them in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention.

4. In appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the order of assessment under S. 34 was set aside. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the decree passed by the High Court of Bombay brought about a complete disruption and severance of the joint status of the original family, and merely because the assessees after severance had lived and traded together, they could not be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. He also held t