Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. It was contended for the respondent that the reopening of the wealth-tax assessment was unwarranted as the declaration filed along with the original return to the effect that no member of the HUF had wealth of Rs. 1, 00, 000 was based upon the assessee's declaration in terms of the mandate contained in the Act. We do not find any substance in such a contention. As the AO has rightly stated, he had been misguided by the statement made by the assessee that no member of HUF had wealth of Rs. 1, 00, 000, what the AO was required to do was to make sure that the HUF did not have any member, with wealth of Rs. 1, 00, 000 or more, in order that the lower rate may be applied to the assessment of that HUF. As it transpires that as the smaller HUF did have assessable wealth, the assessing authority was justified in reopening the assessment. As to who is a member of the HUF for the purpose of determining appropriate rate of tax was considered by this Court in S. S. Renganathan Chettiar vs. CIT [T.C. No. 419 of 1982 decided on 19th October, 1995]. That case was one which arose under the IT Act. This Court held that the Karta of the smaller HUF is also a member of the larger HUF and has a share therein. The Court further held that whatever be the capacity in which the member of the HUF has the income, if that income exceeds, the amount specified in the Finance Act, the higher rate would apply. The reasoning in that judgment would apply with equal force to the provisions of WT Act which also contains similar language. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the reopening of the assessment was without jurisdiction. The question referred to us viz., as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 17(1)(a) of the WT Act are not attracted to the case of the assessee in respect of his wealth as on the valuation dt. 5th February, 1975, is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costsCounsel submits that the matter may be sent back to the Tribunal to consider the matter on merits. 5th February, 1975, is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costsCounsel submits that the matter may be sent back to the Tribunal to consider the matter on merits. We do not see any useful purpose in adopting such a course. The law has been declared by this Court in the decision referred to above. We have in this order held that the reasoning adopted in that decision is applicable with equal force to the relevant provision of the WT Act. The facts are not in dispute at all. Having regard to these circumstances, we do not feel that it is worthwhile to ask the Tribunal to once again redo the same exercise.