A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon.

1. - This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee for answering the following questions of law, namely :

"1. Whether, in the proceedings initiated under section 147(a), the validity of the notices and proceedings taken in pursuance thereof has been raised before the Income-tax Officer and the appeal of the assessee has been accepted on merits, the Tribunal was legally not right in not allowing the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate the notice and as to the validity of the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof to be raised ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in order to go into the question of jurisdiction, the authorities below will have to find out facts in coming to the conclusion one way or the other and thereby not going into that question ?

3. That in the face of the finding of the Tribunal that the full material on the question of jurisdiction is not available on the record, whether the Tribunal was bound to hold that conditions precedent for issuing notice under section 147(a) were not satisfied and the notice issued and the entire proceedings taken were bad in law ?

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the jodhpur property and share income was the income of Deep Chand Kothari, Hindu undivided family ?

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the income from the property and the share income of the Beawar firm were the income of the Hindu undivided family ?

6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property and the share income of jodhpur and Beawar were thrown into the common stock of the Hindu undivided family with the intention of treating it as the income of the Hindu undivided family ?

7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question of the ownership of the Beawar property and share in the firm and their income for the assessment years up to and including the assessment year 1969-70 have been finally settled and could not be reopened in any of the proceedings under the Act ?"

2. The reference pertains to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1969-70. The assessee was being assessed at Beawar as an individual in respect of income from property and 25 per cent. share from the registered firm, M/s. Jabarchand Gokalchand, Beawar. He was also assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family in respect of the incomes from house property, share from firm, M/s. Kundanmal Jabarchand Umed and self business at jodhpur. Notices under section 147(a) of the Act were issued by the Income-tax Officer, C-ward, Jodhpur, to club the incomes arising to the assessee from the said sources at Beawar treating them as the income of the Hindu undivided family at jodhpur. The assessee filed returns, under protest, in the status of a Hindu undivided family. During the reassessment proceedings, he objected to the proceedings on the ground that the notices were void as there was no concealment of any income on his part and contended that he was being assessed at Beawar as an individual and at jodhpur as the karta of a Hindu undivided family and he should be continued to be so assessed. The Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Jodhpur, overruled his objection and clubbed the Beawar incomes with the jodhpur incomes. Appeals were preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and they were allowed by his, common order dated August 17, 1972, holding that the status of the assessee for Beawar incomes has to be taken as an individual and for Jodhpur incomes as a Hindu undivided family. The Department preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and they were allowed by