Judgment :- 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/-. 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 assessee and passed an order of assessment against the respondent herein as Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family estimating his net income at Rs. 1,08,442/-. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner rejected the aforesaid contention put forward by the assessee and passed an order of assessment against the respondent herein as Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family estimating his net income at Rs. 1,08,442/-. The respondent-assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode, but that appeal was disposed of by the said authority by an order dated 26-8-1974 holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had acted rightly in assigning to the assessee the status of Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family and assessing the joint family income in his hands, but making some modification in the estimate of the income. 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate authority the assessee preferred a second appeal AITA. No. 266 of 1974 before the Tribunal, reiterating the contentions which he had urged before the assessing authority and the first appellate authority, upholding both the contentions raised by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the assessing authority had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in assigning to the assessee the status of Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family while effecting a re- assessment in proceedings under S.19 of the Act, when the original assessment was made against the assessee in his status as 'individual'. It was further held by the Tribunal that on the death of the father, Narasimha Bhat, which had taken place subsequent to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Undivided Family had become automatically disrupted by virtue of the operation of the provisions of S.6 of the said Act and thereafter there could be no question of the assessee occupying the status of Kartha of the Hindu Undivided Family. On both the aforesaid grounds the Tribunal held that the assessment made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could not stand. Accordingly, it set aside the order of assessment passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and remitted the proceedings to the assessing authority with the direction to finalise the proceedings afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the Tribunal's judgment. On the motion made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax, Kerala under S.60 of the Act, the Tribunal has thereafter referred the aforesaid questions to this Court. 5. On the motion made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax, Kerala under S.60 of the Act, the Tribunal has thereafter referred the aforesaid questions to this Court. 5. At the very outset we have to observe that it is rather surprising that the Department did not bring to the notice of the Tribunal tyro Division Bench rulings of this Court which directly conclude the point raised by Question No. 4. Though both those decisions are unreported, the Department was a party to those rulings and it ought to have brought those decisions to the notice of the Tribunal. Only because that was not done the tribunal has decided the said question in the way in which it has now done and the matter has been quite unnecessarily got referred to this Court again at the instance of the Department. As early as on 10th August 1973 this Court held in the judgment rendered in ITR. Nos. 69, 70 and 71 of 1971 that S.6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not operate to bring about an automatic disruption of a Hindu Undivided Family on the death of any of its members occurring subsequent to the commencement of the Act and that the only effect of the said section read along with the proviso thereto is to lay down that when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the said Act leaving behind him a female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession under the said Act and not by survivorship. It was further clearly laid down by the said ruling that the carving out of the share of the deceased will not affect the continuance of the joint family or bring about its disruption so far as the surviving members are concerned and that they will continue to constitute a joint Hindu family with the senior most member functioning as its Kartha. This decision was subsequently followed by another Division Bench of this Court and the same principle was reiterated in the judgment dated 11th April, 1975 rendered in ITR- Nos. 29 and 30 of 1973. This decision was subsequently followed by another Division Bench of this Court and the same principle was reiterated in the judgment dated 11th April, 1975 rendered in ITR- Nos. 29 and 30 of 1973. In the light of these pronouncements with which we are in respectful agreement it must be held that the view expressed by the Tribunal that on the death of Narasimha Bhat an automatic disruption of the Hindu Undivided Family was brought about by reason of the operation of S.6 of the Hindu Succession Act is legally incorrect and unsustainable. Accordingly, we answer Question No. 4 in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Department. 6. The next point to be considered is whether in the pre-assessment proceedings that were pending against the respondent, Parameswara Bhat, in pursuance of the order dated 511960 allowing his prayer under S.19 of the Act for setting aside the ex parte assessment, the assessing authority was legally entitled to assess him in the status of a Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family when the return submitted by the assessee was in his capacity as 'individual' and the original ex parte assessment had also been made against him only in the said capacity. In a proceeding under S.19 of the Act the assessing authority after cancelling the original assessment is entitled to proceed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of S.18. That necessarily implies that the fresh assessment to be made under that section can be only against the same assessee. It is now well established that eventhough the same person can be taxed both as an'individual' and as the Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family, the two capacities are totally different. His liability to be taxed as an "individual' is distinct and different from bis liability to be taxed on behalf of his Hindu Undivided Family. The individual and the Hindu Undivided Family are totally different units of taxation and they are two different assessees see Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland v. Rameshwarlal Sanwarlal [(1971) 82 I. T. R.628 (SC.)]. It cannot therefore admit of doubt that in re-assessment proceedings taken under S.19 against a person who had been originally assessed in the status of an'individual', he cannot be "re-assessed" in the capacity of the Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family. It cannot therefore admit of doubt that in re-assessment proceedings taken under S.19 against a person who had been originally assessed in the status of an'individual', he cannot be "re-assessed" in the capacity of the Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family. The reason is clear, namely that'reassessment' necessarily implies that there had been an earlier assessment against the same person. The individual and the joint family being distinct and different persons, the assessment made against the respondent in his capacity as 'individual' cannot be regarded in law as an assessment made against the Hindu Undivided Family. Hence no question of "re-assessment" of the respondent's Hindu Undivided Family under S.19 of the Act could legally arise in this case We are therefore clearly of opinion that the Tribunal was fully right in holding that the assessing authority had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in proceeding to assess the income of the joint family in the bands of the respondent by assigning to him the status of Kartha of a Hindu Undivided family in the re-assessment proceedings taken under S.19 of the Act. We accordingly answer Question Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. These references are disposed of as above. There will be no direction regarding costs. A copy of this judgment, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the Court, will be communicated to the Tribunal, as required by law.