Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. These references under Sec.256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65, The questions referred to us for our opinion are the following : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the provisions of penal interest under Sec.217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted in this case and in deleting the penal interest charged under Sec.217 of the Act ? " 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax had suggested another question for our opinion, which is question No. 2 mentioned in the paper book, namely, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in entertaining an appeal against the levy of penal interest under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The Tribunal, however, did not refer this question for our opinion, as it did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 3. The first question referred to us is concluded by our decision in CIT V/s. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo [1986] 157 ITR 358, where we upheld the verdict of the Tribunal that the assessment of the assessee had to be done in the status of the karta of a Hindu undivided family. That decision related to this very assessee in relation to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The first question, therefore, must be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family. 4. The decision on the third question hinges upon the expression" who has not previously been assessed by way of regular assessment" occurring in Sub-section (3) of Sec.212. The position on facts is that Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo was previously the holder of an estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture and in that capacity he was assessed in the status of an individual in 1952. Thereafter, he was not assessed in any capacity. The position on facts is that Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo was previously the holder of an estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture and in that capacity he was assessed in the status of an individual in 1952. Thereafter, he was not assessed in any capacity. In the very same year, his estate vested in the State of Bihar pursuant to the enactment of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In 1956, the rule of acquisition by lineal primogeniture came to an end consequent upon the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Section 4 of the said Act did away with all customs having the force of law. The shadow thus cast upon the members of the coparcenary to a share in the estate disappeared. Lineal primogeniture law thus evaporated. A Hindu undivided family came out of the clouds. Since 1961-62, the assessee filed his return as Hindu undivided family. Since he had been assessed earlier as individual, the Department did not accept his assertion of his status as Hindu undivided family and assessed him as an individual. The assessee kept on agitating this matter year after year until the Tribunal held that the assessee could not be assessed as individual, but had to be assessed as Hindu undivided family, upholding the stand and assertion of the assessee. The question is whether the assessee was liable to file an estimate of advance tax for the reason that he was a member of the Hindu undivided family, the income of which fell within the mischief of Sec.208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. It is not in controversy that if the assessee in the capacity of a Hindu undivided family had not been previously assessed, he would be liable to fulfil the obligations mentioned in Sec.212 of the Income-tax Act. The moot question is whether the assessee having been assessed as individual in 1952, can be said to be an assessee who had been previously assessed in terms of Section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act. The moot question is whether the assessee having been assessed as individual in 1952, can be said to be an assessee who had been previously assessed in terms of Section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act. Sec.212(3) of the Act reads as follows : "(3) Any person who has not previously been assessed by way of regular assessment under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), shall, before the 1st day of March in each financial year, if his total income exclusive of capital gains of the period which would be the previous year for the immediately following assessment year is likely to exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax in his case by two thousand five hundred rupees, send to the Income-tax Officer- (i) an estimate of the total income exclusive of capital gains of the said previous year; (ii) an estimate of the advance tax payable by him calculated in the manner laid down in Sec.209 ; and shall pay such amount as accords with his estimate, on such of the dates specified in Sec.211 as have not expired, by instalments which may be revised according to Sub-section (2)." 6. It will be seen that an obligation is cast upon any person who has not previously been assessed. A person in terms of Sec.2(31) includes- " (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority, and (vii) every artificial juridical person not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses;" 7. It would thus be seen that for the purposes of assessment, an "individual " is different from " a Hindu undivided family ". In the taxation world, therefore, " an individual" is a separate and distinct entity from "a Hindu undivided family" or a "firm" or "an association of persons ". The status being different, one category cannot be misunder- stood for another. An " individual " can be assessed as " individual " as also as a member or karta of a Hindu undivided family. He would fill different categories in the assessments. The category or the status is of far-reaching importance in the taxation world. Sec.246 provides for appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. An " individual " can be assessed as " individual " as also as a member or karta of a Hindu undivided family. He would fill different categories in the assessments. The category or the status is of far-reaching importance in the taxation world. Sec.246 provides for appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Clause (c) thereof gives a right of appeal even in regard to the decision on the question of status of the assessee. The Explanation to Sec.246 lays down that " status" means the category under which the assessee is assessed as "individual", "Hindu undivided family" and so on. The categories being different, the statutory obligations falling upon them must be different. In that view of the matter, the assessee--the individual--must be held to be a distinct entity from the assessee--the Hindu undivided family. There is, therefore, no escape from the position that the assessee, the Hindu undivided family, had not been previously assessed, although he had been assessed as " an individual" in 1952. The Hindu undivided family not having been assessed earlier, it must follow that in terms of Sec.212(3), he was a person who had not been previously assessed. Not having been assessed previously, he was to pay advance tax according to his estimate in instalments on the status applicable in his case in terms of Sec.211. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income-tax Officer having assessed the assessee as "individual", bound the Department to that position and, therefore, in the background of the fact that the assessee had been assessed as individual in 1952, the Revenue was estopped from contending that the assessee had not been previously assessed. I regret, this submission is fallacious. The assessee himself claimed to be a Hindu undivided family. His stand was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee did not rest with the verdict of the Income-tax Officer. He challenged his status in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as before the Tribunal and succeeded in obtaining a verdict that his stand to be treated as Hindu undivided family was correct. The assessee, therefore, at all times treated himself as Hindu undivided family and his claim was upheld. In that view of the matter, the assessee himself is estopped from contending that he had been assessed earlier. The submission urged on behalf of the assessee must, therefore, be rejected. 9. The assessee, therefore, at all times treated himself as Hindu undivided family and his claim was upheld. In that view of the matter, the assessee himself is estopped from contending that he had been assessed earlier. The submission urged on behalf of the assessee must, therefore, be rejected. 9. It is not in controversy that the assessee had not paid advance tax nor filed estimate thereof. The provisions of Sec.217, therefore, would naturally apply. The assessee was, therefore, liable to pay interest in terms of Section 217 of the Act, I am, therefore, constrained to observe that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the provisions of penal interest under Sec.217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted. 10. Question No. 3 thus mentioned in the statement of the case must be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 11. In fine, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 mentioned in the statement of the case, not having been referred to us, does not call for any answer. The references are disposed of accordingly. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of Sec.260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Nazir Ahmad, J. 13 I agree.