ITO made assessment on assessee in status of unregistered firm. He held that no application has been filed in Form No. 11A seeking registration of firm. He did not accept acknowledgment produced by assessee claiming that application in Form No. 11A has been filed. He took status as that of unregistered firm and completed assessment as per his order dated 31-3-1981. assessee appealed to Commissioner (Appeals). Before him, it was urged that some of partners have already been assessed to tax on their respective share income from firm. Once share income is assessed in hands of partners, it is no longer open to ITO to make assessment on firm itself in status of unregistered firm. Reliance was placed on decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95 as well as Board's circulars issued in 1966 and 1972. Commissioner (Appeals) held that it is undisputed that in case of one of partners, namely, Shri Manmulji, share income of Rs. 11,884 from firm was included in his assessment made on 7-2-1981. Similarly, in case of another partner, Smt. Sitadevi, share income from firm was included in her assessment made on 23-3-1981. order of assessment in status of unregistered firm has been made on 31-3-1981. Commissioner (Appeals) held that ITO has not given any clear finding that firm has complied with requirements of Act and if assessee has not filed application in Form No. 11A, it is not entitled to benefit of registration. ITO cannot reject claim for registration on technical grounds. He set aside assessment order and directed ITO to give clear finding whether assessee-firm fulfilled all requirements of law in regard to registration. On merits, with regard to addition made in assessment, he set aside assessment for being done afresh. Against same, assessee has preferred this appeal. 2. learned counsel for assessee kly urged that once ITO has opted to assess partners' share income from firm, he cannot assess firm again. In this connection, he placed reliance on circulars of CBDT issued in 1966 and 1972 and decision of Supreme Court reported in Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory's case. He submitted that since partners have been assessed on their respective share income prior to assessment of firm, assessment order dated 31-3-1981 in status of n unregistered firm should be cancelled. learned departmental representative supported orders of lower authorities. He submitted that decision reported in Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory's case cannot be applied to provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He placed reliance on two decisions. 3. We have considered rival submissions. It is clear from order of Commissioner (Appeals) as well as from copies of assessment orders which were placed before us that partners, namely, Shri Manmulji and Smt. Sitadevi, have been assessed on their respective share income from firm as per assessment orders dated 7-2-1981 and 23-3-1981, respectively. assessment order on assessee-firm in status of unregistered firm was made on 31-3-1981. ITO, having opted to assess partners by taxing their proportionate share income from firm, is precluded from assessing firm in status of unregistered firm. This is well settled by decision of Supreme Court in Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory's case. above decision was rendered under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. question whether above decision should be applied to provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, was examined by CBDT which issued circular dated 24-8-1966. In Circular No. 75/191/62-IT(J), dated 24-8-1966, it is clarified that although decision of Supreme Court in case of Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory is under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it will equally apply to assessments made under Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, some clarification was sought with regard to above circular. CBDT by another Circular No. F. 279/165/72-IT(J), dated 30-6-1972, stated that views conveyed in circular dated 24-8-1966 do not call for any modification. Thus, Board has clearly clarified that above decision of Supreme Court equally applies to assessments made under Act. It is well settled by decisions of Supreme Court in Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 and Ellerman Lines Ltd. V. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 913 that circulars issued by CBDT are binding on Income-tax Department. 4. decision of Supreme Court in case of Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory has been followed by Gujarat High Court Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory has been followed by Gujarat High Court in Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 747 as well as by Bombay High Court in CIT v. V.H. Sheth [1984] 148 ITR 169, wherein it was held that above decision of Supreme Court would be equally applicable to assessments made under Act. Similar view has been taken by Madras High Court in CIT v. Blue Mountain Engg. Corpn. [1978] 112 ITR 839, Patna High Court in CIT v. Pure Nichitpur Colliery Co. [1975] 101 ITR 79, Calcutta High Court in Ramanlal Madanlal v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 657 and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ch. Atchaiah v. ITO [1979] 116 ITR 675. In all above decisions, it has been held that once assessment of partner of firm has been made by taxing his share income from firm, ITO is precluded from assessing firm in status of unregistered firm, and decision of Supreme Court in case of Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory would equally apply to assessments made under Act. 5. contrary view has been taken by Delhi High Court in Sudsons Construction Co. v. Addl. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 634, wherein it was held that there is no bar under Act against assessing AOP, even though its members have already been assessed separately in respect of their respective shares of income of AOP for same assessment year. 6. With respect, we follow above decisions which are in favour of assessee in preference to decisions of Delhi High Court. We hold that ITO having assessed partners, namely, Shri Manmulji and Smt. Sitadevi, in respect of their respective share income from firm in their assessments made on 7-2-1981 and 23-3-1981, respectively, he cannot assess firm again in status of unregistered firm. Thus, assessment order dated 31-3-1981 made on assessee-firm in status of unregistered firm is not valid. Accordingly, we cancel said assessment order. 7. In result, appeal is allowed. *** SRI VINAYAKA INDUSTRIES v. SEVENTH INCOME TAX OFFICER