Venkatswami, J.—These writ petitions have been preferred by four divided brothers, all sons of one S. L. Mannaji Rao, challenging the orders in revision passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore, under section 264(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Each of the petitioner has preferred two separate petitions questioning the orders of the Commissioner both under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act.

2. The assessment year in question in all these petition is 1963-64. The granting of relief to the petitioner depends on the determination of the question whether the writ petitioner, who are all assessees both under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act, should be assessed as individuals or as members of a Hindu undivided family. In these circumstances, it is sufficient to consider the facts in one set of these writ petitions, filed by S. M. Ananda Rao, namely, Writ Petition No. 265 of 1966 and Writ Petition No. 272 of 1966, for the disposal of this batch of cases.

3. The facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 265 of 1966 are briefly as follows : The petitioner is one S. M. Ananda Rao, one of the sons of S. L. Mannaji Rao, who is the original owner of the properties involved in these assessment proceedings. The petitioner was assessed to Income Tax and wealth-tax for the assessment year 1963-64 as an individual, while he claimed to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. In support of his claim that he should be assessed as a Hindu undivided family, he relied on a settlement deed executed on March 30, 1952, executed between his father, S. L. Mannaji Rao, and himself and his brothers. Though the deed was executed on March 30, 1952, the petitioner, as also the petitioner in the other petitions, were being assessed as individuals till the year in question. In addition to placing reliance on the settlement deed dated March 30, 1952, the petitioner produced two declarations, one of his father and the other of himself, before the assessing authority. The declarations merely stated that the properties settled on the assessees were intended to be enjoyed by himself and his sons as if they were joint family properties. The Income Tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee by his order dated December 31, 1963, and proceeded to assess the petitioner as an individual. Against this order the petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 264(1) of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore. By his order dated May 31, 1965, the Commissioner affirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer and rejected the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family.

4. In Writ Petition No. 272 of 1966, the petitioner, S. M. Ananda Rao, was assessed to Wealth-tax for the same assessment year by an order dated February 14, 1964, by the concerned Wealth-tax Officer. Here also, the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family was rejected, and he was assessed as an individual as hitherto. The petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, who was also the Commissioner for Income Tax. The Commissioner by his order dated May 31, 1965, rejected the contention of the petitioner in this regard and affirmed the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer. In all the other writ petitions preferred by the three other brothers and facts with regard to the contentions urged and orders of assessment passed by the Income Tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act and the orders in revision passed by the Commissioner, in his capacity as the Commissioner for Income Tax and Wealth-tax, are similar.

5. The first submission made by Mr. T. Krishanan Rao, the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the petitioners in all these cases, is that the order passed by the Commissioner in the exercise of his revi