Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that only 50 per cent. of the share income from the firms can be assessed as the income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire share income from the firms cannot be included in the total income of the smaller HUF of D. Jegadeesan for the assessment year 1979-80 without cancelling the order under section 171 recognising the partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78 ?" The assessee is a Hindu joint family and the reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee is a joint family consisting of one Jegadeesan as a karta and his wife. The said Jegadeesan was the son of one Dharmar Nadar who was the karta of a joint family carrying on a business. There was a partition of the said family with effect from March 31, 1964. A claim for recognition of the partition was made under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Income-tax Officer and the Income-tax Officer recognised the partition and passed an order recognising the partial partition. Thereafter, Jegadeesan was taken as a partner in the firm which was constituted to succeed to the family business. Jegadeesan was a bachelor at that time the partition was effected and he was assessed in the status of individual on the share of profits from the firm. Jegadeesan got married in August, 1969, therefore, the Income-tax Officer recognised his status as that of Hindu undivided family. Subsequently a son was born out of this wedlock, by name Vijay Anand. There was another partial partition between Jegadeesan and Vijay Anand with effect from April 1, 1976. Jegadeesan got married in August, 1969, therefore, the Income-tax Officer recognised his status as that of Hindu undivided family. Subsequently a son was born out of this wedlock, by name Vijay Anand. There was another partial partition between Jegadeesan and Vijay Anand with effect from April 1, 1976. It is significant to note that the joint family was deriving share income from three firms, namely, (1) Original Printing Press, (2) Original Fire Works Industries, and (3) Visvanath Match Industries, and some other assets and with reference to other assets of income they were not the subject-matter of the partition. The assessee made a claim during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78 that a partial partition between the assessee and his minor son has been effected with reference of the assets of the Hindu undivided family held in the firm and should be recognised under the provisions of section 171 of the Act before the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over the matter. The Income-tax Officer considered the matter and held that the joint family consisted of Jegadeesan and Vijay Anand, and there was a partial partition between the assessee and his minor son and the minor son got a half share. After making necessary enquiries, the Income-tax Officer was satisfied that there was a genuine partial partition and passed an order under section 171 of the Act dated February 27, 1978, recognising the partial partition between the assessee and his minor son. Following the said order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed that the share income from all the three firms should be assessed in the hands of the assessee only to the extent of 50 per cent. and the balance of 50 per cent. should be assessed in the hands of Vijay Anand, the minor coparcener, in accordance with the partial partition. The Income-tax Officer accepted this claim for the assessment year 1977-78 and also for the later years and made the assessments accordinglyThe Commissioner of Income-tax, subsequently, for the assessment year 1979-80 issued a notice under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act that the assessment of only 50 per cent. of the share income as having accrued to the assessee by way of share income from the three firms was erroneous in law and there was no overriding title in favour of the minor as regards the balance of 50 per cent. of the share income as having accrued to the assessee by way of share income from the three firms was erroneous in law and there was no overriding title in favour of the minor as regards the balance of 50 per cent. of the share income and, therefore, he issued notice under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act calling upon the assessee to submit an explanation against the proposed revision for the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee raised several objections and the Commissioner of Income-tax overruled them and held that there was no diversion of income of the minor's share income from the firm and when the assessee paid 50 per cent. share of the income, it amounted to an application of income and, therefore, the entire 100 per cent. share income arising from the firms should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. He, therefore, held that the assessment made in the hands of the assessee bounding it to 50 per cent. of the share income from the firm was erroneous. Though a contention was raised before the Commissioner of Income-tax that a partial partition was recognised by the Income-tax Officer in his proceedings for the assessment year 1979-80 and after the recognition of partition and that order has become final, it was not open to the Commissioner of Income-tax to hold that the entire share income should be assessed in the hands of the assessee without disturbing the finality. The Commissioner of Income-tax has not considered the objection Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that after an order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 171 of the Act recognising the partial partition, it was not open to the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise the order of assessment without setting aside that order. The Tribunal held that as long as the order under section 171 of the Act holds the field, the action of the Income-tax Officer of assessing only 50 per cent. The Tribunal held that as long as the order under section 171 of the Act holds the field, the action of the Income-tax Officer of assessing only 50 per cent. of the share in the hands of the assessee's undivided joint family cannot be said to be erroneous and the Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction to invoke the provision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and cancel the assessment made earlier by the Income-tax OfficerAggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue sought for a reference and obtained a reference on the question stated above. Mr. C. V. Rajan, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that the Commissioner's order lacks jurisdiction, is not correct in law. On the other hand, Mr. Janarthana Raja, counsel for the respondent, supported the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Revenue as well as learned counsel for the assessee The Supreme Court in the case of joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT dealt with section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and held that once an order under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act was passed by a competent authority, it is not open to the Income-tax Officer to ignore the same and issue a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the Hindu undivided family to review the order passed under section 25A of the Act, which in its very nature is effective for all subsequent years. According to the apex court, once an order under section 25A of the Act was made, the family ceases to be assessed as an entity and thereafter it cannot be assessed in that status, unless the order is set aside by a competent authority. According to the apex court, once an order under section 25A of the Act was made, the family ceases to be assessed as an entity and thereafter it cannot be assessed in that status, unless the order is set aside by a competent authority. Obviously, in the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax has not taken any steps to set aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 171 of the Act and the proper course, in our view would be for the Commissioner of Income-tax to initiate proceedings to set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, passed under section 171 of the Act; when he is of the opinion that the order passed was not legally correct and then to direct the Income-tax Officer to compute the income of the Hindu undivided family, after setting aside the order passed under section 171 of the Act. We are of the opinion that so long as the order passed under section 171 of the Act remains in force and operates, it is neither permissible nor open to the Income-tax Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax to ignore the same as the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 171 of the Act is a statutory order and has statutory force and the Commissioner of Income-tax is equally bound by the order passed under section 171 of the Act. Though the assessee raised the contention before the Commissioner that so long as the order was in force, the Commissioner of Income-tax has not chosen to set aside the order made by the Income-tax Officer and more curiously the Commissioner of Income-tax has not dealt with that aspect at all. We are at a loss to understand, as to how the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer in accordance with the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 171 of the Act can be said to be erroneous and it will be erroneous, if the order of assessment was in any way contrary to that order. The Commissioner of Income-tax in our opinion has without jurisdiction revised the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax lacked the jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer passed in tune with the order passed under section 171 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax in our opinion has without jurisdiction revised the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax lacked the jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer passed in tune with the order passed under section 171 of the Act. The order of the Appellate Tribunal, holding that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction is in order and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Income-tax Officer. We are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was also justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment without cancelling the order passed under section 171 of the Act. Since we are upholding the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner, it is not necessary to consider the other points decided by it. Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to this court in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.