JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, on his applications Nos. RA 78 to 81/(Ind) of 1987 for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 arising out of the orders passed by the Tribunal in W. T. A. Nos. 229 to 232/(Ind) of 1986, the Tribunal has referred the undernoted question of law for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family in the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 ?" 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. 3. The assessee obtained property on partial partition which took place in 1955 among his grandfather, father and brothers. At that time, he was unmarried. Till the assessment year 1978-79, the returns were filed by him in the status of an "individual". He married on February 24, 1978. Thereafter, he submitted his income-tax and wealth-tax returns for the assessment year 1979-80 claiming status as Hindu undivided family in respect of the properties obtained by him in partial partition. His status as Hindu undivided family was accepted by the Tribunal for the year 1979-80, vide order dated July 11, 1986, passed in W. T. A. No. 261/(Ind) of 1984. However, for the subsequent years, i.e., 1980-81 to 1983-84, the Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the status as Hindu undivided family in respect of those properties, and took the status as an individual. The properties were thus clubbed. A consolidated order for the aforesaid four years was passed on September 10, 1984, (annexure-A). The assessee filed the appeals. The appeals were rejected (annexure-B). The assessee then filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals (annexure-C). He then filed applications under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Tribunal referred the question as noted above. 4. We have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Shri Sharda for the applicant-assessee and Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-applicant-Department. 5. We notice that the Tribunal elected to follow 'the case of CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya [1985] 142 ITR 357 (MP) instead of the case of CIT v. Krishna Kumar [1983] 143 ITR 462 (MP) [FB] on the assumption that Vishnu Kumar Bhaiya's case [1983] 142 ITR 357 (MP) covered the situation. 6. 5. We notice that the Tribunal elected to follow 'the case of CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya [1985] 142 ITR 357 (MP) instead of the case of CIT v. Krishna Kumar [1983] 143 ITR 462 (MP) [FB] on the assumption that Vishnu Kumar Bhaiya's case [1983] 142 ITR 357 (MP) covered the situation. 6. Three factors emerge from the record : (a) After marriage on February 24, 1978, the assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1979-80 claiming the status as Hindu undivided family. This status was accepted and the assessment was made as Hindu undivided family. (b) The factum of marriage is not disputed. (c) The decision in Krishna Kumar's case [1983] 143 ITR 462 (MP) is a Full Bench decision rendered by following two Supreme Court decisions in Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 and Narendranath (N. V.) v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190. 7. The Full Bench in [1983] 143 ITR 462 (MP), relying on the Supreme Court decisions, held as under (at page 463) : "There can be no doubt that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. Although the assessee had no son and the wife had no interest in the properties of the family, yet, for purposes of status, the assessee with his wife constituted a Hindu undivided family." 8. The facts are similar in the instant case. The Tribunal noticed in the order as under : "Though there is some divergence of opinion in the Full Bench ([1983] 143 ITR 462 (MP)) decision and that of Vishnukumar Bhaiya's case ([1983] 142 ITR 357 (MP)), that divergence can only be solved by superior courts. ..." 9. We are unable to understand as to why the Full Bench decision was not followed as was done in the case of earlier assessment for 1979-80, and as to why the question of so-called divergence was assumed. The factual matrix made it luculent that the assessee was married on February 24, 1978, and on that basis claimed the status as Hindu undivided family. This position was accepted initially, but was not accepted for the subsequent years. There is no proper logic for such a departure. 10. It is in the area of legislative ambiguities, yet not receding, that courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts, and mitigate hardships. This position was accepted initially, but was not accepted for the subsequent years. There is no proper logic for such a departure. 10. It is in the area of legislative ambiguities, yet not receding, that courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts, and mitigate hardships. In the words of judge Learned Hand, spoken in Cabell v. Markhan [1945] 148 F 2d 737, 739, we get enough light to locate the correct path : "It is one of surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence .... to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning." 11. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Tribunal unnecessarily indulged in hair-splitting and erroneously declined the status as Hindu undivided family. 12. In the result, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84. 13. Accordingly, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 14. This reference application stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal under the seal and the signature of the Registrar of this court. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs as incurred. Counsel fee for each side shall be Rs. 750, if certified.