RAMANUJAM J.


At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal :


"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income of the minors could not be clubbed under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the assessee herein for the assessment year 1975-76 ?" *


A similar question came up for consideration before this court in T. C. No. 1231 of 1977 and this court by judgment dated February 4, 1983. (CIT v. S. Balasubramaniam has held that the share income of the minors could be clubbed under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the assessee even if he represents the joint family in the firm and not in his individual capacity. The said decision has been followed in the decision in T. C. Nos. 458 to 461 of 1978 and 530 of 1978, dated September 28, 1983, by another Division Bench. Having regard to the said decision, the question in this case has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee.


Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the assessee submits that this court in T. C. No. 1231 of 1977 (CIT v. S. Balasubramaniam has disagreed with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sanka Sankariah and a special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the said judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has since been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court should be taken to have become final and conclusive and in so far as this court's judgment in Tax Case No. 1231 of 1977 (CIT v. S. Balasubramaniam is in conflict with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it should be taken to require reconsideration. We are not in a position to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, for the rejection of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court cannot be taken to be an expression of its opinion on the question involved. The fact that the Supreme Court has refused to entertain a special leave petition against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cannot be taken to be disapproval of the

judgment of this court referred to above. In this view of the matter, we are bound to follow the decision in Tax Case No. 1231 of 1977 (CIT v. Balasubramaniam and the decision in Tax Cases Nos. 458 to 461 and 530 of 1978. There will be no order as to costs.