JUDGMENT :

Shah, J.

1. Karuppan Chettiar, his son Muthukaruppan and his grandsons formed a Hindu undivided family which was assessed to income tax as a Hindu undivided family till Assessment Year 1948-49. In the course of assessment proceedings for 1949-50 it was claimed on behalf of the Hindu undivided family that the properties and the several businesses of the family had been partitioned between Karuppan Chettiar on the one hand and Muthukarppan and his sons forming a separate Hindu undivided family on the other. For Assessment Years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 Karuppan Chettiar, pursuant to the notices under Section 22(2) issued to the Hindu undivided family, submitted returns in his individual capacity in respect of the income from several sources that fell to his share at the partition. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim of Karuppan Chettiar that there had been a partition of the Hindu undivided family and proceeded to assess the Hindu undivided family for the three years in question treating returns filed by Karuppan Chettiar as returns filed by the family. In appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer were set aside. Holding that there had been a complete petition of the family estate between Karuppan Chettiar on the one hand and his son Muthukaruppan representing a smaller Hindu undivided family of himself and his minor sons on the other, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by order dated December 18, 1954 recorded the partition under Section 25-A of the Income Tax Act and cancelled the assessments of the family for the three years in question. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed in his order:

"As such the present assessment requires to be annulled and the income considered in this assessment required to be considered in the hands of the separate coparceners."

2. After the order was passed, Karuppan Chettiar in his individual capacity filed returns for Assessment Years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 for the first two years on February 3, 1955 and for the third year on June 30, 1956.

3. Being of the opinion that he was entitled to give effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner recording partition of the Hindu undivided family of Karuppan Chettiar and his descendants and cancelling the orders of assessment of the family, the Income Tax Officer issued notices on March 2, 1957, under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act to Karuppan Chettiar for assessment of his income as a separated member for Assessment Years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. In compliance with the notices, Karuppan Chettiar submitted returns of his income for the three years in question under protest. The Income Tax Officer ignored the protest and assessed the income of Karuppan Chettiar by his order dated March 31, 1957. The appeals filed by Karuppan Chettiar to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had a direction under his original order to assess the divided members separately, the Income Tax Officer was invested with jurisdiction under the second proviso to sub-section 2(3) of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act to make the impugned assessments without any limit as to time and that independently of Section 34 the assessments could also be supported under Section 25-A (2) and in any event the assessment for the year 1952-53 having been completed within four years time-limit from the end of the order of assessment was valid.

4. The tribunal at the instance of the assessee submitted the following question to the High Court of Madras under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922:

"Whether the aforesaid assessments for 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 are valid?"

5. The High Court recorded an answer in the affirmative. In the view of the High Court, the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the direction given by him lifted the bar of limitation