This case involves rather interesting question of law. assessee is youngman and filed return disclosing income of Rs. 10,000 for relevant accounting year. During proceedings, ITO obtained certificate from Shri Maheshwari Higher Secondary School from which it was found that assessee was born on 11th July, 1963 from which it was followed that he was minor during relevant accounting year. During proceedings, assessee claimed that he has born on 11th July, 1960 and in support of his claim submitted affidavit of his mother Smt. Rameshwari Vaid and medical certificate by Dr. V.M. Gupta. ITO scrutinised entire evidence and ultimately came to conclusion that assessee was merely benamidar of his father who was avoiding heavy tax incidence by showing fictitious income in name of assessee who was his minor son. He, therefore, assessed income of assessee only on protective basis at Rs. 29,500. assessee filed appeal before AAC challenging amount of income as well as protective nature of assessment. AAC was of opinion that since assessment was completed on protective basis, ITO should have accepted return of income of assessee as such and it was for ITO for having jurisdiction over assessee s father in respect of assessment proceeding to determine actual total income of benami business activities. He, therefore, restored figure of income returned by assessee but did not interfere with protective nature of assessment. assessee has come up in second appeal before Tribunal. I have heard representative of parties at length in his appeal. assessee s representative referred to medical certificate and other relevant evidence produced on behalf of assessee to prove that he was not minor during relevant accounting year. It was also urged that even if assessee was minor he could still enter in contractual obligation and his contracts, if any, could be challenged by parties and not by IT Department. In my opinion, all these arguments are beside point. If ITO was of opinion that assessee was minor and income earned by assessee was to be clubbed with income of his father, proper course for ITO concerned was to give intimation to ITO assessing assessee s father, who could have taken note at all these facts. protective nature of assessment is now being challenged by assessee, with view to exonerate father from liability to take on this income. Therefore, real question would have to be determined in assessment of father himself. If assessee s contention that income belongs to him is rejected by IT authorities or by Tribunal, assessee s father will be still at liberty to urge that income really does not belong to him, therefore, correspondingly if income as returned by assessee is accepted by Tribunal to be his own income, Department would not be debarred from adding income in hands of his father. Therefore, it is futile to express any opinion over assessee s contention that income really belongs to him and he was not minor during relevant accounting year. number of authorities were cited on behalf of assessee for proposition that while ITO can make protective assessment, Tribunal cannot confirm such assessment. first authority relied upon was Smt. Hem Lata Aggarwal vs. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All). In my opinion, that case proceeds on entirely on different footing. There lady had disclosed income from sale of ornaments which story was disbelieved by ITO. income was sought to be added in hands of lady s family protectively, it was added in hands of lady also. protective nature of assessment was confirm by Tribunal. High Court held that even Department itself was saying that income really did not belong to lady and really belonged to her family same could not be assessed in hands of lady, and she had never stated that it was her taxable income. present is reverse case. Here Department is claiming that income in question does not belong to assessee. It is being assessed only because assessee has returned same. assessee cannot challenge assessment in his hands whether this should be added in hands of assessee s father or not would be determined in assessment of father and not in assessee s case. excess addition made by AAC in relation to benami business over and above income disclosed by assessee has already been deleted by AAC, therefore, assessee has no grievance left. next authority cited was decision of 'B Bench of Tribunal at next authority cited was decision of 'B Bench of Tribunal at Allahabad in Savitri Devi vs. ITO (1983) 16 TTJ (All). All that was held in that case that AAC should have decided appeal of lady in whose hands assessment had been made protectively after ascertaining action taken by ITO in case of assessee s husband. Tribunal therefore, set aside order of AAC and directed him to decide appeal afresh after ascertaining facts of case and action taken by ITO in husband s assessment. This is not relief which assessee wants in this case. He wants me to determine that assessee was major and it was really his income. It is impossible to do so unless assessment of assessee' father is in dispute because it is really there that question would arise and would have to be determined. Another authority cited was decision of Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Rajiv Kumar vs. ITO (1984) 19 TTJ 526 (Chd). In that case, there had been consent decree passed by Court. ITO had held decree to be collusive. Tribunal reversed conclusion of ITO on ground that contents of concrete decree has been accepted by Revenue in all assessment prior and subsequent to relevant assessment year. assessment was, therefore, made substantive. However, question as to whether this issue could at all be determined in case of assessee was never agitated before Tribunal and Revenue did not contest appeal on this ground which was never gone through. Yet another decision cited was decision of 'E Bench of Tribunal in Smt. Sarda Devi Gupta vs. ITO. Here again, assessee had become partner in firm by making capital contribution 50 per cent of which was gifted to her by parents in law. ITO held assessee s income to be taxable in hands of those donors. He had, however, made protective assessment on declared income of assessee. Tribunal really decided that at time of cash gifts F&M were not parents in law of assessee and, therefore, share income from firm had to be assessed in her own hands. I may, however, point out that Tribunal was not concerned with question as to whether income could be added in hands of assessee parents in law. Though Tribunal referred to fact that ITO had issued notices to parents in law to show-cause why provisions of s. 64(3) should not be applied, Tribunal never considered this issue, so far as addition in hands of parents in law was concerned. In this behalf, I may point out that even in (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All) (supra), it was observed in last three lines of second para at p. 436 of report that what Tribunal ought to have done in case like this was to hear both appeals together and finally determine as to whether impugned sum is, if at all, income of husband or wife. It was argued on behalf of assessee that present income has not been added in hands of assessee s father at all and, therefore, present assessment should be made substantive. I am afraid this is no ground for passing any order in this behalf. So far as assessee is concerned, he has been assessed on returned income as disclosed by him and any decision in his case would naturally not be binding either in favour of or against father. Therefore, to make present assessment substantive which would have effect on assessment of father himself would not be proper because father is not intervene in these proceedings and any order passed by me will not be binding upon him. I may, however, point out that entire exercise by I T O in present case was exercise is futility which has resulted in unnecessary inconvenience to assessee was wastage of time of Department. proper course in matter would be to inform ITO concerned work assessment of father who would then take decision and then only it would be possible to make this present assessment substantive or to cancel it together. In result, appeal is disposed of in above terms. *** RAJ KUMAR VAID v. INCOME TAX OFFICER