Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this case shall govern disposal of other connected cases being MCG Nos. 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294 and 295 of 1995 because an these oases involve identical point. Secondly, they all arise out of common impugned order passed by the Tribunal and lastly, it is in relation to same assessee, except the difference is that each case relates to different assessment year. ( 2. ) THIS is an application made by the Revenue (CIT) under Section 256 (2) of IT Act consequent upon the dismissal of application made by the Revenue under Section 256 (1) of the Act by the Tribunal by order dt. 26th Sept. , 1994, passed in RA Nos. 15 to 23/ind/1994 which in turn arises out of ITA Nos. 198 to 206/ind/1993. In the opinion of Tribunal, the questions proposed do not relate to any issue of law, nor can they be held to be pure question of law for being answered on merits by this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Act. According to Tribunal, the questions proposed are pure questions of fact and hence, they cannot be referred to this Court for answer as referable questions within the meaning of Section 256 (1) of the Act. It is against this dismissal, the Revenue i. e. , CIT, has come up by submitting these applications under Section 256 (2) of the Act praying to this Court that this Court should call the questions proposed by the Revenue by asking the Tribunal to refer to this Court. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that the application has no merit. In other words, the questions proposed do not satisfy the requirement of either Section 256 (1) or (2) as they are neither the questions of law, nor do they really arise out of the order of the Tribunal, so as to call upon this Court to answer the same on merits in exercise of powers conferred under Section 256 (1) ibid. ( 5. ) THE question involved in this case is, as to whether AO was justified in assessing the assessee as AOP for the year in question. ( 5. ) THE question involved in this case is, as to whether AO was justified in assessing the assessee as AOP for the year in question. In the opinion of the Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence for forming an opinion, the AO was not justified in proceeding to treat the creation of AOP and then accordingly, assess the assessee. It was also held and in our opinion rightly that once one of the members is already assessed as an individual then the AO cannot set aside the said assessment and assess the said individual-assessee in his capacity as AOP. ( 6. ) IN our opinion, when on facts, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that for want of any conclusive evidence there was no basis for holding existence of AOP, then in such event, no referable question of law is made out for answer by this Court in Section 256 (1) proceedings. The question whether there is a material or not for holding existence of AOP cannot be said to be a question of law for answer. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Punjab Cloth Stores v. CIT, (1980) 121 ITR 604 (Del) and Deccan Bharat Khandsari Sugar Factory v. CIT, (1980) 123 ITR 802 (AP) and contended that a question of law does arise in the case. We find no merit in this submission. The facts of the case do not justify that any question of law really arises. ( 8. ) WE, therefore, find no merit in the case. Accordingly and in this view of the matter, the application fails and is dismissed.