The main legal point established in the judgment is that the individual and the Hindu Undivided Family are distinct units of taxation, and the assessing authority cannot assess the income of the joint family in the hands of the individual in re-assessment proceedings under S.19 of the Act.

1. The Kerala Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal Additional Bench Kozhikode (hereinafter called the Tribunal) has referred to this Court under S.60 of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act hereinafter called the Act the following questions:

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that when an assessment made against an 'individual' under S.18 (4) has been reopened under S.19 of the Act, the proceedings are pending against the 'individual' only and not against the Hindu Undivided Family, of which he is the Kartha or Ejaman?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment completed against the Kartha or Ejaman of the Hindu Undivided Family is vitiated, if it is finalised after re-opening an order of assessment under S.19 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act against him as an individual?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is justified in law in holding that as no notice under S.35 has been issued calling upon the Kartha to file a return of the income representing the Hindu Undivided

Family, the proceedings against the Hindu undivided family are vitiated? and

(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case this Tribunal is justified in law in holding that on the death of Shri Narasimha Bhat there is a disruption of status of the Hindu Undivided Family under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and his share is devolving upon his wife and children, which is automatic and statutory and provisions of S.29 of the Agricultural income Tax Act are not attracted in these circumstances?

2. From the statement of the case furnished to this Court by the Tribunal the facts material for our present purpose may be extracted and briefly stated thus: The respondent herein - Parameswara Bhat, son of Narasimha Bhat filed a return before the Agricultural Income tax Officer, Kasaragod for the assessment year 1958-59. That return was filed by him as an'individual'. The assessment for that year was finalised by the Agricultural Income tax Officer under S.18(4) of the Act, and assigning the status of 'individual' to the assessee, his net income was estimated at Rs. 25,473/-. On receipt of the order of assessment and demand notice, the assessee Parameswara Bhat filed a petition praying for reopening the assessment under S.19 of the Act. That application was allowed by the assessing authority and the assessment was reopened as per an order dated 5-1-1960. Subsequently, the files appear to have been transferred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Special, Kozhikode, who issued a pre-assessment notice to the assessee on 6-3-1967 purporting to assess him afresh under S.19. By the said notice the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner proposed to finalise the assessment of the assessee under S.18(4) of the Act. It was however stated in the notice that since the respondent herein was a Kartha of the Chullikana Hindu Undivided Family, the status claimed in his return as 'individual' was not correct or acceptable and consequently the entire income of the family was assessable in his hands as Kartha of the Hindu Undivided Famiiy.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid re-assessment notice, the assessee filed a petition, wherein he questioned inter alia the legality and propriety of assessing him as the Kartha of the Hindu Undivided Family in the course of re-assessment proceedings taken under S.19 of the Act when the original assessment made against him was in the status as 'individual'. He also put forward a contention that no Hindu Undivided Family was in existence at that time since there had been an automatic disruption of the family on the death of his father, Narasimha Bhat, which took place on 17 21957, by virtue of] the operation of S.6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner rejected the aforesaid contention put forward by the a