Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The above tax case references are at the instance of the assessees and they relate to the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1973-74. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. ITO, disapproving its earlier decision in R.K. Malhotra vs. Kasthuribhai, the authorities below were bound by the order dt. 31st July, 1978 of the Tribunal rendered on the basis of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court? 2. Whether the Tribunal ought not to have held that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in having been disapproved in is not the law to be applied whatever the stage of the proceedings? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that it was information to the ITO under s. 147(b) of IT Act when the audit party merely informed him that there was no nexus between the borrowals and advances? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the assessee challenging the validity of the reassessments in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in TC 51R.1371, (supra) for the reason that the assessee had not agitated against the order of the Tribunal upholding the reassessments on the basis of the view which prevailed then?" 2. The assessees are individuals and they are co-owners of two estates, viz., Mohanand Peak Estate and Karapara Estate and admittedly, the income derived from the estate was agriculture income. There were certain credits by way of interest received on money advanced to certain business concerns and the estate also seem to have paid interest on its own borrowing. The assessees' share from the agriculture income were not admitted in the IT returns on the ground that debits of interest exceeded the credits and that net payment of interest alone came to be considered. The ITO, originally accepted the claim of each of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1973-74, but he later reopened the assessment invoking the provisions of s. 147(b) of the IT Act. The ITO, originally accepted the claim of each of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1973-74, but he later reopened the assessment invoking the provisions of s. 147(b) of the IT Act. The assessee preferred separate appeals against the orders of reassessment on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and also on the merits of the case. The first appellate authority did not agree with the contentions of the assessees and upheld the jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen the assessment. He also upheld the inclusion of interest on the merits of the case. The assessees carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee on the question of jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen the assessments under s. 147(b) of the Act relying on the decision of the apex Court in R. K. Malhotra vs. Kasthuribhai Lalbhai (supra) but, however, remitted the matter to the ITO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with certain directions given by it. The ITO completed the assessments in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal. There were appeals preferred by the assessees before the first appellate authority. The assessee once again questioned the powers of the ITO to reopen the assessment on the basis of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and contended that reopening of the assessments by the ITO was invalid and the officer lacked jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of s. 147(b) of the Act. The first appellate authority rejected the contention urged by the assessees which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The assessees have challenged the order of the Tribunal and the questions of law, earlier set out, have been referred to us. 3. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to correct conclusion in not permitting the assessee to reagitate the question regarding the jurisdiction of the officer to reopen the assessments which was already concluded against the assessee by an earlier order of the Tribunal. 3. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to correct conclusion in not permitting the assessee to reagitate the question regarding the jurisdiction of the officer to reopen the assessments which was already concluded against the assessee by an earlier order of the Tribunal. We have set out the facts in detail and the facts are clear that in the earlier order, the Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act and that order of the Tribunal has become final since the assessee has not filed any application either for reference or for rectification under ss. 254(2) and 256(1) of the Act and by the assessees' own conduct, the earlier order of the Tribunal upholding the jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen the assessment has become final. Therefore, it is neither permissible nor possible for the assessee to re-agitate the question once again before the same forum in a subsequent proceedings initiated on the basis of its earlier direction. This Court in TC Nos. 1805 and 1806 of 1996 by judgment dt. 20th February, 1998 [reported as M.P.S. Senthilkumar vs. CIT 1999 (151) CTR(Mad) 266] has taken the view that once the order has become final and unless its finality is disturbed by a manner known to law or permitted by the law, it is not open to the assessee to question the order of the Tribunal in a subsequent proceedings. We are of the opinion that the decision of this Court rendered in the above tax case would apply to the facts of this case and it is not open to the assessees once again to challenge the jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen the assessment before the Tribunal. There are four questions and the first question of law referred to us would suffice and that would cover all the aspects raised in all the four questions. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that all the four questions should be reframed and only the first question of law which is comprehensive and takes in all the aspects of the case is taken as the question referred to us in all the tax cases and we answer the question of law as reframed by us in all the tax cases in the affirmative and against the assesseeNo costs.