By the Bench.—As the above appeals and COs involve common points so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. WTA Nos. 153/Jp./1994 to 159/Jp./1994 are appeals by the IT Department for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91 respectively, against the common order of CWT(A), Udaipur, dated 11-2-1994, whereby he treated the reassessments made under section 16(3)/17, WT Act, to be void and accordingly allowed the assessee’s appeals for the aforesaid seven assessment years. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. CO Nos. 27/Jd./1998 to 33/Jd./1998 are COs by the assessee for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91 which are directed against the common order of CWT(A), Udaipur, dated 11-2-1994, inasmuch as the learned CWT(A) disposed of the appeals before her solely on the ground of invalidity of the assessments due to non-existence of HUF, and did not decide some other substantive grounds taken by the assessee before her on merits.

4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.

5. We first take up the appeals of the Revenue being WTA Nos. 153/Jp./1994 to 159/Jp./1994 in the above seven appeals for the seven assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91. The Revenue has raised the following common ground :

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CWT(A) has erred in holding the assessment made under section 16(3) as void by observing that the HUF consisted of two members and one of the members having died on 9-5-1991. As such the HUF had not existed when the assessment was made, ignoring the fact that for the WT proceedings valuation date is relevant and on the relevant valuation date the HUF was very much existing and, therefore, assessment made subsequently was valid one".

The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that the death of one member of the family out of two members took place on 5-9-1991, whereas the valuation date for the last assessment year (assessment year 1990-91) involved in these appeals being 31-3-1990, none of these assessment years, gets affected by the said event of death on 5-9-1991. He has contended that the assessee-HUF has voluntarily filed WT return for all these years and this is mentioned in the assessment order also. He has contended that the learned CIT(A)’s basis for holding the reassessments for these assessment years to be invalid has been the death of one out of two remaining coparceners having already taken place by the time of making WT reassessments as the said reassessments for assessment years upto 1989-90 were made on 26-3-1992, and the reassessment for assessment year 1990-91 was made on 12-3-1993. He has contended that the learned CIT(A)’s conclusion is not right inasmuch as it is only the valuation date of the respective assessment years which is relevant and not the date of assessment/reassessment. He has contended that on the respective valuation dates of the assessment years involved in these appeals, the HUF was very much existing. He has, in this regard, also drawn our attention to the provisions of section 3 of the WT Act. He has contended that the HUF having once been in existence will come to an end only when complete partition of HUF is there. Citing N.V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC) the learned Departmental Representative has contended that once property getting character of HUF the said character will not change till partition; and that even on respective valuation dates in these cases there was no partition. He has contended that in the case of an HUF, property devolves by survivorship and not by inheritance to LRs. He has contended that the assessee voluntarily filed returns as HUF and so there is an admission on the part of the assessee regarding the existence of HUF. He also contended that in case of the Revenue’s plea is accepted then the matter should go back to the CIT(A) for valuation of the properties as the valuation poi