JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - On being moved by Mr. Nirmal Chandra Choudhury (the assessee) by an application u/s 256(2) of the income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), this Court directed the Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, to state a case and refer the following question for opinion : Whether the Appellate Tribunal was wrong to hold that the provisions of section 3(1)(f) of the income tax Act, 1961 applied to the facts of this case? Pursuant to direction, the Tribunal has stated a case. Background facts are as follows: The assessee who was earlier carrying on business in his individual capacity entered into a partnership arrangement, and a partnership firm styled as Premier Industries came into existence. The accounting year as followed by the firm ends on 30th of September of every year. The assessee had filed a return wherein he indicated his previous year to be 31-3-1980 so far as the assessment year 1980-81 is concerned. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the only source of income of the assessee was share of profit in the partnership firm. Applying the provisions of section 3(1)(f) of the Act, the period ending 30-9-1979 was determined to be the previous year for the relevant assessment year. This was questioned in appeal by the assessee before the AAC. The AAC reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal. The stand of the revenue was that once the firm has definite accounting period, the same has to prevail in case of the partner who has a share in the profits of the partnership and that is how section 3(1)(f) comes into operation. Stand of the assessee was that he having exercised his option in terms of section 3(1)(b), it is not open to the department to change it. The Tribunal was of the view that section 3(1)(f) applies to the facts of the case, because the assessee was a partner in a firm which has been assessed by taking the period ending 30th of September to be the previous year. As such, in respect of the assessee's share in the income of the firm, the period adopted for the firm has to be applied. The Tribunal did not state a case though moved u/s 256(1), and, therefore, this Court was moved u/s 256(2) as indicated above. 2. As such, in respect of the assessee's share in the income of the firm, the period adopted for the firm has to be applied. The Tribunal did not state a case though moved u/s 256(1), and, therefore, this Court was moved u/s 256(2) as indicated above. 2. The only dispute involved in this case, is whether the provisions of section 3(1)(f) have been rightly applied to the case of the assessee. The question is what could be the previous year applicable to an assessee who is a partner in a firm which is assessed as such. 3. The question has really become academic with effect from 1-4-1989. Section 3(1)(f) as stood prior to substitution by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 with effect from 1-4-1989 reads as follows: 'Previous year' defined. - (1) For the purposes of this Act, 'previous year' means- (a) to (e) ****** (f) where the assessee is a partner in a firm and the firm has been assessed as such, then, in respect of the assessee's share in the income of the firm, the period determined as the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm; or 4. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Panda on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. R.Y. Singara Mudaliar [19881 172 ITR 608. On going through the decision, we find that fact situation involved therein was different. As a matter of fact, it was found that the assessee had other sources of income and that he closed his accounts so far as other sources of income are concerned on different dates. That is a distinctive feature. 5. In our considered opinion, section 3(1)(b), as it stood at the relevant time, was a provision of general nature. It permitted an assessee to exercise option so far as determination of the question of previous year is concerned. Section 3(1)(f), on the other hand, related to a specific class of assessees, i.e., those who were partners in firms which have been assessed as such. It was stipulated that in such a case the period determined as previous year for assessment of the income of the firm has to prevail over the general provision contained in section 3(1)(b). Section 3(1)(f), on the other hand, related to a specific class of assessees, i.e., those who were partners in firms which have been assessed as such. It was stipulated that in such a case the period determined as previous year for assessment of the income of the firm has to prevail over the general provision contained in section 3(1)(b). The effect of clause (f) is that the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm is statutorily made the previous year of the partner in respect of his share in the income of the firm even if the partner has income from other sources for which he may have a different previous year. A view similar to that of ours has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, KERALA Vs. M. S. SHEIK ROWTHER., while considering a case u/s 2(ii) of the Indian income tax Act, 1922. The pro Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Mckenzies Ltd., has also expressed similar view. In view of analysis made by us above, we find that the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that section 3(1)(f) applied to the facts of the case. Our answer to the question referred is in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Patnaik, J.- I agree.