Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. In this tax case petition, the Department requested this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal for our opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the status of the assessee is that of a co-owner and not an ' association of persons ' ?" * The assessee claimed that his status is that of a co-owner whereas the Department assessed the assessee in the status of association of persons. The Tribunal held that inasmuch as the assessee was assessed as a co-owner in the previous assessment years, his status should be taken as that of a co-owner and should not be taken as that of an association of persons. While coming to this conclusion the Tribunal followed an earlier decision in the case of CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation 1978 (112) ITR 839, 1978 (7) CTR 142, 1978 CTR(Mad) 142. Learned standing counsel for the Department submitted that in S. C. P. No. 73 of 1978 leave was granted by the High Court as against the judgment rendered in Blue Mountain's case 1978 (112) ITR 839, 1978 (7) CTR 142, 1978 CTR(Mad) 142. It was also brought to our notice that in Tax Cases Nos. 338 to 340 of 1984 (CIT v. K. Chandrasekaran 1990 (182) ITR 392 (Mad)), an order was passed following the decision rendered in CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation 1978 (112) ITR 839, 1978 (7) CTR 142, 1978 CTR(Mad) 142 (Mad). As against the order passed in Tax Cases Nos. 338 to 340 of 1984 (CIT v. K. Chandrasekaran 1990 (182) ITR 392 (Mad)), special leave petitions were filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the said special leave petitions (vide CIT v. K. Chandrasekaran [1989] 178 ITR(St) 73). In view of the foregoing reasons we consider that no referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this tax case petition is dismissed. No costs.