JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - S.J.C. 2953: This is a reference u/s 29(3) of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act (XXIV) of 1947 at the instance of the Assessee Sridhar Sahu who was assessed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Ganjam, for the year 1949-50 on an agricultural income of Rs. 46,612-10-5. Sridhar was assessed as representing the Hindu undivided family. The Assessee went up in appeal before the Assistant collector of Agricultural Income Tax 'Who disallowed the Assessee the consociational rate available to the undivided Hindu family consisting of brothers only as provided for under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 10 read along with the Schedule. Eventually the Assessee filed an appeal before the Collector, who confirmed the assessment made by the Assistant Collector. Against the order of the Collector the Assessee went up in revision to the Member (C.T.), Board of Revenue, who set aside the order of the Collector and sent the case back on remand for ascertainment of new facts which appeared to him to be very pertinent for the purpose of disposal of the case. He directed the Collector to ascertain if the family consists only of the grandsons of the persons who were brothers at one time, or whether it consisted of another generation also, that is, great-grand-sons of the brothers. The Collector after remand, called upon the Assessee to furnish further information on the point and the Assessee in his petition dated 4-8-1952 before the Collector stated that the Assessee himself had two sons and four of the other cousins had also got one or two sons each, they being the great-grand-sons of the set of brothers who were the sons of the common ancestor Lachhaman Sahu. The Collector therefore found that the Assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate provided in the Schedule of the Act. This decision having been confirmed in revision, the Assessee applied for a reference to this Court before the Member, Board of Revenue, who refused to make the reference. The Collector therefore found that the Assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate provided in the Schedule of the Act. This decision having been confirmed in revision, the Assessee applied for a reference to this Court before the Member, Board of Revenue, who refused to make the reference. The Assessee thereupon filed a petition before this Court to call upon the Member, Board of Revenue, to state a case, This Court by its judgment dated 28-4-1955 called upon the Member, Board of Revenue, lo refer a case to the Court on the following question: Whether in the circumstances of this case the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 10(1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act (XXIV) 1947? 2. Section 10(1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act runs as follows: 10(1) The total agricultural income of a Hindu undivided family shall be treated as the income of one Individual and assessed as such: Provided that if a Hindu undivided family consists of brothers only as "explained in the Schedule, the total agricultural income of the family shall be assessed at the rate specified in the Schedule". Schedule B sets out the rates of agricultural income tax in the case of every Hindu undivided family consisting of brothers only. The explanation to the Schedule runs thus: Explanation-For the purpose of this Schedule (1)'brother' includes the son and the son of a son of a brother and 'the widow of a brother". Such a family as contemplated under the Schedule is entitled undoubtedly to the concessional rates. In the present case, as we get it from the genealogy which was originally supplied by the Petitioner that Lachhaman is the common ancestor. He had five sons, Chaitan, Jagilli, Padan, Khagei and Purusottam. They were undoubtedly brothers. The present family according to the original genealogy consists only of the grandsons of these five brothers. The five brothers are dead and an their sons also are dead. As I have indicated above, the Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 10-6-1952, set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case for examination of the point as to who are the present members of this family, and does it consist only of the grandsons of the brothers or also great-grandsons. As I have indicated above, the Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 10-6-1952, set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case for examination of the point as to who are the present members of this family, and does it consist only of the grandsons of the brothers or also great-grandsons. It appears clear, as found by the Collector himself in his order dated 30-10-1952, that the Assessee was noticed to state whether any of the grandsons had a son or grandson. The Assessee in his petition dated 4-8-1952 made the matter clear that he himself had two sons and four other cousins had also got one or two sons each. This position of fact was accepted not only by the Collector but also by the Member, Board of Revenue. The position remained consistency unchallenged as transpired from the petition of the Assessee himself. This position appears also clear from the statement of the case made by the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 2-9-1956 in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in its judgment dated 28-4-1955 to state a case. The position could not and has not been challenged before us. We may in this connection refer to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. which is indeed a case with the parallel provisions of the Income Tax Act. Their Lordships held: It is, therefore, the duty of the High Court to start by looking at the facts found by the Tribunal and answer the questions of law on that footing. Any departure from this rule of law will convert the High Court into a fact filing authority, which is not under the advisory jurisdiction. The statement of the case under the rules framed under the Income Tax Act is prepared with the knowledge of the parties concerned and they have a full opportunity to apply for any addition or deletion from that statement of the case. If they approved of that statement that is the agreed statement of facts by the parties on which the High Court has to pronounce its judgment. 3. The fact remained therefore that the family is a Hindu undivided family consisting not only of the grandsons of the aforesaid five brothers but also their great grandsons. If they approved of that statement that is the agreed statement of facts by the parties on which the High Court has to pronounce its judgment. 3. The fact remained therefore that the family is a Hindu undivided family consisting not only of the grandsons of the aforesaid five brothers but also their great grandsons. The concessional rate, as provided for in Section 10(1), is only available to the Hindu undivided family consisting of brothers only. As indicated above, the word 'brother' has been explained in the Schedule as to include "the son and the son of a son of a brother and the widow of a brother". By no stretch of construction the rate will be available to a family consisting of great-grandsons of brothers. It is absolutely clear therefore that the question is to be answered definitely in the negative that the Assessee, in the circumstances of this case is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 10(1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act (XXIV) of 1947. 4. In conclusion the reference is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 50/- (fifty). 5. S.J.C. 3053: This reference is exactly on the same point and the Assessee is the same but the assessment is for the subsequent year. Our decision S.J.C. 2953 will govern this reference which is accordingly dismissed but without costs. Narasimham, C.J. 6. I agree. 7. Appeal dismissed.