A.Raghuvir, C. J. — The two References 21/81 and 9/90 relate to S. Ajit Singh Rais, (the assessee) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first Reference is made at the instance of the assessee by the Tribunal. That Reference relates to assessment years 1971-72,1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The second Reference was made by order of this Court at the instance of the assessee. The second Reference relates to assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The eight questions referred in the former Reference are: I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the status of the assessee was that of individual and not H.U.F. ? 2) Whether the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and has not based its findings on irrelevant materials while determining the status of the assessee ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was correct and had any material to hold that there was no new fact or material on record with the A.A.C enabling him to have come to a different conclusion than arrived at by the Tribunal in its order dated 18.12.75 ? 4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the declaration of the assessee and the verification in the income-tax return for the assessment year 1957-58 and their acceptance by the I.T.O. and the W.T.O. are not sufficient and complete to impress the assessee's self acquired property with the character of the H.U.F., it is open for the assessee, much less to a stranger, to revert them back to the individual character ? 6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessee's action of blending the inherited ancestral properties with that of the properties beforehand impressed with the character of the HUF would not amount to throwing in the common botch pot of the HUF and especially in view of the declaration and verifications in the income-tax and wealth tax returns for the assessment year 1958-59? 7) Whether the Tribunal was right in refusing to consider the legal submissions made and the various judgments cited before it by the assessee ? 7) Whether the Tribunal was right in refusing to consider the legal submissions made and the various judgments cited before it by the assessee ? 8) Whether the Tribunal adjudicating upon an order passed under section 143(3) was correct in ignoring the order under section 171 which had become final by efflux of time and in fact nullif­ying the said order under section 171? Whether the order of the Tribunal is not contrary to the Supreme Court judgment reported at 63 ITR 416? The three questions referred in the second Reference are : 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the status of the assessee was that of individual and not H.U.F. ? 2) Whether the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials while determining the status of the assessee ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribu­nal was right in upholding the inclusion of the income under section 64 of the Income-Tax Act despite the claim of partition of Eleye Cinema business with effect from 1.4.67 ? The revenue and the assessee both represented if the first question in the two References is answered all other questions in the two References will follow suit. The father of the assessee Sohan Singh and Tahel Singh are brothers. Sohan Singh died on July 24, 1957 and his last testament is dated July 1, 1957. In that testament the assessee is the sole legatee. Narindar Kaur is the spouse of the assessee and their three sons are Ripudaman Singh, Purdaman Singh, Tejdaman Singh, and Sukhmit Kaur is their daughter.A Title Suit 3/71 was filed on January 10,1971 on the file of the Assistant District Judge, Sibsagar, Jorhat by Ripudaman Singh.In that suit Ajit Singh, Purd" man Singh, Tejdaman Singh,Sukhmit Kaur were defendants. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on October 28,1971 and a final decree was passed on December 18, 1972. The Income-tax Officer in these cases examined on March 24 and 29,1977 the following witnesses who deposed as to the suit and how the joint family properties got divided. Ajit Singh Rais deposed that in Pabhojan Tea Estate he was a partner. He referred to a trust created on January 13, 1968 and a cinema house named Eleye Cinema House. The Income-tax Officer in these cases examined on March 24 and 29,1977 the following witnesses who deposed as to the suit and how the joint family properties got divided. Ajit Singh Rais deposed that in Pabhojan Tea Estate he was a partner. He referred to a trust created on January 13, 1968 and a cinema house named Eleye Cinema House. His deposition reveals that on April 1,1967 the joint family properties were divided among the three sons. In the returns submitted for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 1959-60 and 1961-62 the assessee asserted to have blended his personal property with that of HUF. As to dates of birth of Ripudaman and Purdaman he explained due to lapses in his memory some inaccuracies crept in records. Narindar Kaur deposed that she was in possession of the properties as per final decree and she furnished a list of them. Ripud­aman Singh deposed that he managed Eleye Cinema Hall and that he received properties as per the final decree. Tejdaman Singh deposed that he is in possession of properties allotted to him. Besides the oral evidence a host of assessment orders passed under the Income-tax Act are placed on record. We may briefly summarise what the orders relate to and what assessment year. Sohan Singh and Tahel Singh the two are assessed as partners in the assessment orders of 1953-54 of a registered firm.In the assessment orders of 1956-57 and 1957-58 the firm Sardar Sahib Sohan Singh Rais & Sons w as assessed as a registered firm. In the assessment order 1958-59 the two sons of the assessee are taxed as partners of an unregis­tered firm. In the assessment orders 1954-55, 1955-56 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, Sohan Singh is assessed as an individual. In the orders 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 the assessee is shown as HUF. In the assessment orders of 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 the assessee claimed unsuccessfully before the I.T.O. and A.A.C. the status of HUF. In the orders- of 1964-65 and 1967-68 the assessee is shown as an individual. In the wealth tax assessment the assessee for 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1961-62 is assessed as HUF. There is no consistency in these orders so for as the status of the assessee is concerned. In the wealth tax returns the assessee is shown as HUF but under the Income-tax Act the assessee for the same years is shown as individual. In the wealth tax assessment the assessee for 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1961-62 is assessed as HUF. There is no consistency in these orders so for as the status of the assessee is concerned. In the wealth tax returns the assessee is shown as HUF but under the Income-tax Act the assessee for the same years is shown as individual. It does not appear any attention was paid to strike any consistency when these orders were passed. On a reading of these orders much is left to be desired. The learned counsel for the assessee in this case pointed out Will dated July 1, 1957 of the assessee's father in that the assessee is the sole legates. Whatever property the assessee got under that Will it is pointed out by the assessee in the income-tax return of 1957-58 was shown as the property of HUF but in the succeeding year 1959-60 the assessee is again taxed as an individual. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that under Mitakshara law a coparcener is entitled to declare his personal individual property or self-acquired property as coparcener property or joint property from the date of declaration. A declaration of that nature is not a gift and is not a transfer. Hindu Law enables such a declaration to be made by any member of the Hindu joint family. If authorities are needed to such a proposition it is found in AIR 1968 SC 1276 (G.Narayana Raja vs. G. Chamaraju & others), AIR 1972 AP 233 (Gundlapalli Mohan Roa & others vs. Guadlapalli Satyanarayaaa & others and 140 ITR 303 (C.I.T. vs. Mahendra Kumar Mitharmal) We accept that on demise o" the assessee's father the return submitted ^y the assessee for the year 19^9-60 shows the assessee treated the property he succeeded under the Will to be HUF property. That inference of fact can be accepted as no specific form of declaration is required to be made under Hindu Law. The next question which was argued was with reference to section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The corresponding provision in 1922 Act is section 25A. The Supreme Court considered the scope of section 25A in the case of 63 ITR416, Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs. CIT and highlighted the scope of the section as it reflects in assessment orders. The assessment orders are shown to be self-contained orders. The corresponding provision in 1922 Act is section 25A. The Supreme Court considered the scope of section 25A in the case of 63 ITR416, Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs. CIT and highlighted the scope of the section as it reflects in assessment orders. The assessment orders are shown to be self-contained orders. A decision in an assessment year does not operate as resjudicata or bind the assessee or the revenue in a subsequent year. This inference is drawn as the assessing officer is not a Court and he Income-tax Officer can depart from the decision in subsequent years as each assessment year is final and conclusive between the parties only for that year. Having said this reference is made to section 25 A and it is said : ''But this rule, in our judgment, doss not apply in dealing with an order under section 25A (1). Income from property of a Hindu undivi­ded family 'hitherto' assessed as undivided, may be assessed separately if an order under section 25A (l)had been passed. When such an order is made, the family ceases to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. Thereafter, that family cannot be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family unless the order is set aside by a competent authority. Under clause (3) of section 25A if no order has been made notwithstanding the severance of the joint family status, the family continues to be liable to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family, but once an order has been passed, the recognition of severance is granted by the Income-tax department, and clause (3) of section 25A will have no application." In this regard a decision of the Punjab High Court, (1966) 61 1TR 408, Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ganeshi Lal Sham Lal rendered under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was approved. The principle of contrast set out in section 25A as against the other orders is in substance incorporation of the principle of comity. One of us (Chief Justice) referred to comity principle in 178 1TR 311: 1988(2) GLJ 412, Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. N.R. Sirkar. The principle of contrast set out in section 25A as against the other orders is in substance incorporation of the principle of comity. One of us (Chief Justice) referred to comity principle in 178 1TR 311: 1988(2) GLJ 412, Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. N.R. Sirkar. See in the Constitution of U.S.A, at page 626 comity is defined in follo­wing manner : "A self imposed rule of judicial morality whereby indep­endent Tribunals of concurrent or co-ordinate jurisdiction exercises in mutual restraint in order to prevent inference with each other and to avoid collusion of authorities." Thus we hold the principle of comity is incorporated in section 25A and section 171 of the 1961 Act. The orders of assessment years from 1968-69 to 1974-75 is the subject matter of reference. In the preceding years that is orders for the assessment year 1961-62 to 1967-68 the assessee's status was recognised as an individual. In these orders the assessee claimed the status of HUF. When the ITO did not grant him he filed an appeal before the A.A.C and by an order dated April 24, 1969 his status as an individual was confirmed. Thereafter he did not pursue the issue; Therefore, we find it difficult to accept now the contention in the assessment year 1968-69 and onwards the assessee should be accorded the status of HUF. In view or the above discussion we hold the first question in the two References that the order of the Tribunal did not suffer any vice whatever. We answer the first question against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. In view of this decision other questions need not be answered separately as the conclusion in the first question operates on other questions. The references are ordered accordingly. No costs.