Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The assessee, Murugesa Naicker Mansion, Madras, derives income from letting out property at No. 544, Triplicane High Road, Madras-5. The assessee claimed that the property in question is owned by three persons whose shares are definite and ascertainable. As the shares of the co-owners were definite and precise, they were returning their share of income from the property in question in their individual capacities 2. (a) The ITO has assessed the income derived from the property in the hands of 'association of persons' rejecting the contention of the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82. (b) When the matter went before the AAC, he annulled the assessment following the decision of this Court in CIT v. Blue Mountain Engg. Corpn. as well as the order of the Tribunal, Madras B1 Bench in ITA Nos. 955 to 958 (Mad.) of 1981, dated 22-9-1982 relating to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78 in the case of the assessee itself. (c) The department took up the matter on further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Blue Mountian Engg. Corpn. (supra), confirmed the order of the AAC and dismissed the revenue's appeal. (d) It is on these facts, the Tribunal at the instance of the revenue referred the question of law as below for the opinion of this Court, "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on the assessee as an association of persons, after the assessment made earlier in the case of one of the members of the association thereof for the assessment year 1981-82, was legal ?" 3. Arguments of Mr. R. Sivaraman, the learned counsel representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, the learned junior standing counsel representing the revenue and of Mr. G. Ashok Pathy, the learned counsel representing Mr. K. Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, were heard. 4. There is no denial of the fact that the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, following the decision in the case of Blue Mountain Engg. Corpn. (supra) by a Division Bench decision of this Court. The said Division Bench decision of this Court is now not holding the field in the sense that the same had been overruled by the Apex Court in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah. 5. Corpn. (supra) by a Division Bench decision of this Court. The said Division Bench decision of this Court is now not holding the field in the sense that the same had been overruled by the Apex Court in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah. 5. For the appreciation of the question involved we may incisively refer to the facts of the case, in the case of Blue Mountain Engg. Corpn. (supra) and the decision rendered thereon before, we are to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra). (a) In the Division Bench case of the Madras High Court, the assessment on a partner of an unregistered firm was made under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') including therein an estimate of his share of the income from the firm in which he was a partner. Thereafter, the assessment on the firm was made by the same officer on an estimate, as no return was filed and treating it as an unregistered firm. The claim of the firm that once an assessment had been made on the partner including his share of income from the firm, no assessment on the firm could thereafter be made, was negatived by the ITO and the AAC but upheld by the Tribunal. (b) On a reference to this Court, at the instance of the department, this court held that in spite of the slight change in the phraseology between section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 4 of the Act, the ITO continues to have an option to assess either the unregistered firm or the individual partners thereof and the assessment of a firm, after a partner has been assessed on his share of income from the firm would not be legal. 6. In the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra), the Supreme Court after overruling a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Blue Mountain Engg. Corpn. 6. In the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra), the Supreme Court after overruling a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Blue Mountain Engg. Corpn. (supra), expressed that a comparison of the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax, 1961 immediately brings out the difference between them, (a) Section 3 of the 1922 Act provided that in respect of the total income of a firm or an association of persons, the income-tax shall be charged either on the firm or the association of persons or on the partners of the firm or the members of the association of persons individually. It is evident that this option was to be exercised by the ITO, keeping in view the interests of the revenue. In such a situation, it was generally held that once the ITO opted for one course, the other course was barred to him. But no such option is provided to him under the present Act. (b) Section 4 of the Act of 1961 says that income-tax shall be charged on the total income 'of every person' and the expression 'person' is defined in clause (31) of section 2. The definition merely says that the expression 'person' includes, inter alia, a firm and an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. (c) There are no words in the present Act which empower the ITO or give him an option to tax either the association of persons or its members individually or for that matter to tax the firm or its partners individually. If it is the income of the association of persons in law, the association of persons alone has to be taxed and the members of the association of persons cannot be taxed individually in respect of the income of the association of persons. Consideration of the interest of the revenue has no place in this scheme. If it is the income of the association of persons in law, the association of persons alone has to be taxed and the members of the association of persons cannot be taxed individually in respect of the income of the association of persons. Consideration of the interest of the revenue has no place in this scheme. Where Parliament wanted to provide an option, or a discretion, to the ITO, it has provided so expressly(d) Section 183 (which has since been omitted with effect from 1-4-1993, by the Finance Act, 1982) provided that in the case of an unregistered firm, it is open to the ITO to treat it, and make an assessment on it, as if it were a registered firm, if such a course was more beneficial to the revenue in the sense that such a course would fetch more tax to the public exchequer. (e) Under the present Act, the ITO has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must tax the right person and the right person alone. By 'right person' is meant the person, who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. The expression 'wrong person' is obviously used as the opposite of the expression 'right person'. Merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the Assessing Officer is not precluded from taxing the right person with respect to that income. 7. On the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra), it goes without saying that the assessment made on the assessee as an AOP, after the assessment made earlier in the case of one of the members of the association thereof for the assessment year 1981-82, was legal and this question is answered accordingly. 8. This tax case is, thus, disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.