JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:— The appeallants writ petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed in limine by a Bench of the High Court on October 19, 1970. The Commissioner of Income tax, Gujarat II, respondent No. 1 was the authority against whom several reliefs had been claimed in the writ petition. Subsequently were added the other members of the family of the appellant as respondents to the writ petition. The appellant obtained a certificate from the High Court for appeal to this Court under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) ofArticle 133 of the Constitution of India as it stood before the 30th Constitution Amendment Act. Hence this appeal to this Court.

2. Having heard Mr. B. R. L. lyengar, Senior Advocate for the appellant at some length we found that the appellant was ill-advised to file the writ petition and to pursue the matter upto this Court. The appeal being devoid of any substance must fail. We proceed to state the facts and discuss the points urged before us very briefly.

3. One Bapalal Purshottamdas Modi was the head of a Hindu undivided family. The Joint family possessed many immovable properties and carried on business of various types such as money-lending etc. Bapalal had five sons namely Vadilal, Ramanlal, Jayantilal, Gulbchand and Kantilal. Ramanlal died long ago in or about the year 1933 Jayantilal died in 1956. The appellant is one of the sons of Jayantilal.

4. The appellants case in the writ petition was the Bapalal was the karta of the Hindu undivided family. He executed a general power of attorney on October 5, 1948 in favour of his third son Gulabchand to manage his (Bapalals) separate property. On October 22, 1954 Bapalal relinquished his right, title and interest in the joint family properties on taking a sum of Rs. 75,000/- leaving the corpus and management of the joint family properties to his four surviving sons and Rajnikant, son of late Ramanlal. These five members also executed a memo of partition on October 24, 1954 disrupting the erstwhile Hindu undivided family and partitioning the properties.

5. In course of the proceedings for assessment of the income tax for the assessment year 56 against the Hindu undivided family of Bapalal Purshottamlal Modi, an application under Section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was madeclaiming partition w.e.f October 24, 1954. Notices of the enquiry under Section 25A were served on all the members of the family. At the enquiry the statements of various persons including the appellant were recorded by the Income Tax Officer. He, by his order, dated January 28, 1960 disallowed the claim under Section 25A of the Income Tax Act, 1922. It is asserted that in the year 1961 a suit for partition had also been filed and the City Civil Court Ahmedabad passed a decree for partition on June 30, 1965. In an appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the order of the Income Tax Officer dated January 28, 1960 reliance was placed on the Civil Court partition decree also. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal by his order dated September 30, 1965. A second appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed on March 28, 1969. Income tax assessment was made against the Hindu undivided family for the year 1955-56. Assessments were also made against the Hindu undivided family, sometimes treating it as Association of Persons or Unregistered Partnership Firm as per returns field from time to time, for the subsequent year upto the assessment year 1965-66. Copies of all the assessment orders were enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure I collectively. Appeals taken to the Tribunal from some of the assessment orders were also dismissed. Notices were being issued and served under Sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment years which were governed by the said Act. In respect of the assessment years 1962-63 onwards notices were issued and served under Sections 142 and 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A lar