Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The assessment year involved in this case is the assessment year 1978-79 and the question that arises for consideration is whether the assessee is a firm and entitled to registration for the assessment year 1978-79 ? The assessee is a firm and for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee filed a return of income on January 25, 1979, admitting the income of Rs. 20, 542. The assessee claimed that it is entitled to the benefit of registration, but the Income-tax Officer by a separate order held that the status of the assessee should be taken as an association of persons and not a registered firm. The Income-tax Officer followed his earlier order wherein he has refused to grant registration to the firm and following his earlier order, he held that the status of the assessee should be taken as an association of persons. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner following the order of the Appellate Tribunal rendered in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration. On appeal by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal following its earlier order in I. T. A. No. 1856 (Mds.) of 1975-76 dated February 17, 1977, held that the status of the assessee should be taken as a firm and was entitled to the benefit of registration. It is against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue sought for and obtained the statement of case under the following question of law. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that there is a genuine firm in existence and hence the assessee is entitled to registration for the assessment year 1978-79 ?" At the time of the hearing of the tax case referred, Mr. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that there is a genuine firm in existence and hence the assessee is entitled to registration for the assessment year 1978-79 ?" At the time of the hearing of the tax case referred, Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant, brought to our attention the decision of this court in the assessee's own case in CIT v. K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar wherein this court has taken the view that there was a valid partnership between the karta of the Hindu undivided family and some of the co-parceners and consequently it was held that the assessee was a firm and the partnership firm would be entitled to registration under section 185(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This court upheld the view of the Tribunal that the firm was entitled to registration. A similar view was taken by the apex court in Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. CIT wherein the Supreme Court held that there can be a valid partnership between the karta of the Hindu undivided family and undivided members of the Hindu undivided family with reference to the separate property. Following the earlier decision of this court rendered in the assessee's own case we are of the view that the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a genuine firm in existence and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of registration. Though the assessee was not served, since the matter is concluded by an earlier decision of this court in favour of the assessee, we are of the view that we need not wait for the service of the notice on the respondent. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.