JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I. T. A. Nos. 629 to 632/Bang/2003, raising following substantial question of law: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rental income received by the appellant-firm was liable to be taxed in its hands without invoking the provisions of Section 26 of the Act especially when the shares of each of the partners are determinate and the Tribunal had in its earlier order in the appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) had held that the status was association of persons and the provisions of the Section 26 were to be applied ? 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 3. The appellant herein filed the return of income for the assessment years 1995-96, 1998-99 on March 31, 2000, declaring his total income as nil. The case was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed an order rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessee is a firm, against which the assessee has filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated July 20, 2000 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer passed an order of reassessment pursuant to an order of remand by holding that there is no evidence on record to show that the firm is dissolved, the partners have no definite and ascertainable share in the property of the firm and that there is no sharing ratio in the property. Therefore, he held that the appellant herein has to be assessed as partnership firm-an association of persons and that the rental income received by the assessee on letting out of godown is assessable under the income from the house property. This order was called in question by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which appeal came to be dismissed, against which a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was filed which appeal also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of all the authorities, the present appeal is filed. 4. This order was called in question by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which appeal came to be dismissed, against which a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was filed which appeal also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of all the authorities, the present appeal is filed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee contends that the Assessing Officer did not consider the effect of Section 26 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the Assessing Officer has given a definite finding that the firm is not dissolved, which would show that the firm is in existence. If the firm is in existence, it has to be assessed to tax as a firm by looking into the terms and conditions of the partnership deed. Learned Counsel contends that without noticing the pith and substance of the partnership deed, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order without giving a definite finding either considering the assessee as a partnership firm or as an association of persons. He further contends that, even if the assessee is considered as an association of persons when each person has got an ascertained share, it was for the Assessing Officer to assess each of the persons by following the provision of Section 26 of the Income Tax Act. He therefore contends that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax so also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, he requests the court to allow the appeal. 5. Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the assessment order, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not considered the documents produced by the assessee as to whether the assessee is a partnership firm who are having a definite and ascertainable share in the property of the firm. Since the same has not been considered by both the authorities, we allow the appeal without answering the question of law framed herein and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 6. In the result, we allow this appeal directing the Assessing Officer to consider the case of the assessee afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, all the orders passed by the authorities below are hereby quashed.