G. SANTHANAM, A.M.: These are appeals by assessee and as they involve similar points, consolidated order is passed for sake of convenience. assessee is assessed in status of individual. Original return of income was filed for asst. yr. 1981-82 admitting income from house property amounting to Rs. 191 and income from medical business at Rs. 8,900 along with other sources of income. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return including first two items and separate return was filed in status of HUF disclosing these items. It is case of assessee that income from house property and income from medical shop are rightly assessable in hands of HUF notwithstanding fact that in past years these were assessed in status of individual. ITO also found certain investments in fixed deposits in name of assessee's wife on two dates amounting to Rs. 30,000. Rejecting assessee's claim that investments were made by his wife from her own sources, ITO treated amount as income in assessee's individual hands. This constitutes second point of dispute for asst. yr. 1981-82. For asst. yr. 1982-83, status of assessee in regard to income from medical shop is in dispute. In first appeal for asst. yr. 1981-82, AAC rejected contention of assessee that there was partition prior to 19th April, 1968. He accepted version of ITO that lands that were sold on 14th May, 1958 belonged to assessee's father in his individual capacity and even if lands belonged to HUF, money made available to assessee upon sale of these lands way back in 1958 would have been exhausted to meet educational expenses of assessee. Thus, question of any amount being available for purpose of shop from assessee's brother on 26th March, 1962 did not arise. conduct of assessee in showing income from medical shop in his individual assessment stood against assessee's claim now made before authorities. Finally, AAC held that assessee's claim of partition of cash in 1950s and 1960s stood not only unproved but also disproved. As for addition of deposits in name of assessee's wife, AAC held that ITO rightly disbelieved version of assessee that his wife Smt. Ramalakshmi received Rs. 15,000 on 10th Oct., 1968 from her father, in view of fact that there was no documentary evidence to corroborate such claim. AAC noted that assessee's father-in-law was not man of means n d , therefore, he held that ITO rightly disbelieved version of assessee and his father-in-law. Thus, he confirmed addition made by ITO. For asst. yr. 1982-83, AAC, following his earlier order, confirmed status of assessee as that of individual. Sri M.J. Swamy ld. Counsel for assessee, submitted that assessee had acquired medical shop on payment of Rs. 713.88 only. This amount was available with assessee because there was sales of land prior to date of acquisition. Copies of sale deeds are on records of ITO. first sale deed is dt. 14th May, 1968. vendors are assessee's father, his brothers and also assessee represented by father and natural guardian. sale consideration was Rs. 12,000. Rs. 6,000 was received in cash and Rs. 6,000 was paid in settlement of mortgage loan. Even assuming that only Rs. 6,000 was available in cash, assessee's share would be Rs. 1,200 and medical shop was purchased only for Rs. 713.88. ITO erred in holding that these lands belonged to assessee's father in his individual capacity. There is no material to hold as such. If lands belonged to assessee's father alone, there was no need for his sons including assessee to execute sale deed. This itself is ample proof of fact that lands belonged to HUF of which assessee's father was Karta. ITO's other inference that even if lands belonged to HUF, money that was available from out of sale of lands would have been exhausted by time medical shop was purchased in 1982 is only surmise born out of suspicion. assessee was then minor and was undergoing training in D. Pharmacy at Visakhapatnam getting scholarship from Government. There is no evidence to hold that share of sale proceeds of lands had been spent on education of assessee. assessee's father is not man of straw. Apart from this sale, there was another sale of land on 21st May, 1960 by father of assessee. In this sale deed, assessee's father alone is vendor. These lands also belonged to HUF. By this sale, sum of Rs. 9,700 was received in cash. balance of Rs. 6,800 was utilised for discharge of debts incurred earlier. This amount was also available. Sri Swamy contended, alternatively, that even if sale that took place on 21st May, 1960 was held to be of lands belonging to father of assessee in his individual capacity, very fact that there was mention of settlement of prior debts would amply prove that father was maintaining minor son from out off his borrowings and, therefore, minor's share of proceeds of first sale that was made in 1958 to which minor was also party was available with minor. This is internal evidence against conclusions reached by ITO to contrary. Sri Swamy referred to Partition List made on 19th April, 1968 between father of assessee and his sons. recital to Partition List refers to partition that had taken place earlier in respect of immovable properties and movable properties excluding properties mentioned in schedule to said Partition List. list deals with allotment of properties in favour of assessee's father and his sons. This would show that there was HUF having properties both movable and immovable and there had been partition prior to 1968. recital in said partition deed will fit in with fact that hotch-potch of HUF was not empty. It is submission of Sri Swamy that much is made of letter of Sri B. Satya Rao, brother of assessee. It is not case of assessee that sale proceeds were distributed equally among all sons. sale deeds themselves contain reference to satisfaction of purchase consideration by adjustment of debts incurred earlier. Therefore, there was nothing inconsistent in statement of Sri B. Satya Rao that his father had utilised sale proceeds for expenditure incurred in connection with his marriage and marriage of his brother. Even after satisfying these debts, there was cash left and assessee had explained before ITO that he being youngest son, his father retained cash balance in his favour and improved same from year to year. So, there was nothing inconsistent between assessee's version and version of his brother B. Satya Rao. As matter of fact, Sri B. Adinarayana Murty, another brother of assessee, had stated before ITO that there was partition of sale proceeds and monies were improved upon by lending same to agriculturists for interests from time to time, etc. In view of evidence produced, ITO ought to have accepted status of assessee in manner claimed. Merely because assessee had correctly not appreciated his status in preceding years, he is not estopped from claiming his true status henceforth. Regarding addition of Rs. 30,000, Sri Swamy submitted that evidence produced was not appreciated in proper perspective. father-in- law of assessee had informed ITO that at time of marriage, his daughter Smt. Ramalakshmi received presents upto Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 7,500 was given by her father-in-low, thus amounting to Rs. 12,500, which was kept with him and advanced to rights on interest from time to time since 1966. Discharged pronotes were also produced in support of advance having been made to rights and these shreds of evidence were brushed aside by authorities below. In his deposition before ITO, assessee had stated that there was partition in 1960 in which gold and silver were distributed and in 1968 there was partition of immovable properties. wife of assessee had also stated that sources for deposits of Rs. 30,000 were from monies received from her father and accumulations thereof on account of money-lending. In light of this, there was no jurisdiction for adding these deposits held by assessee's wife in hands of assessee. Sri B. Kailasnath, ld. Representative for Department, submitted that mere fact that assessee and his brother along with their father had executed first sale deed in 1958 would not by itself mean that lands belonged to family. They might have jointly executed sale deed by way of abundant caution. Even if lands are held to be HUF lands, major part of sale proceeds had been utilised towards settlement of loans taken prior to execution of sale deed and, therefore, what little was available out of sale proceeds would have been spent by time medical shop was acquired in 1962. As regards sale of land in 1960, only Rs. 6,000 was available in cash and taking together both sales, total amount available would be only Rs. 15,700 and that ran counter to averment of assessee in his covering letter dt. 26th Oct., 1982 where assessee had stated that sale proceeds letter dt. 26th Oct., 1982 where assessee had stated that sale proceeds were to tune of Rs. 30,000. Thus, there is inconsistency even with regard to quantum of sale proceeds. He referred to statement given by Sri B. Satya Rao, brother of assessee, disclaiming distribution of sale proceeds n d argued that even if amount had been distributed, same would assume character of individual property only as it did not have any ancestral nucleus. In this connection, he relied on decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) that self-serving recital should be rejected outright and assessee should not be permitted to agitate question of status after long interval. As regards addition of Rs. 30,000, being deposits standing in name of assessee's wife, Sri Kailasnath submitted that her father had himself stated that he did not make use of monies belonging to his daughter for purpose of making advances. This ran counter to statement of wife of assessee. There was no documentary evidence to corroborate statement of assessee's wife or that of her father. Therefore, they were rightly rejected. Having regard to rival submissions and materials on record, we set aside order of CIT(A). appellant herein had acquired medical shop from his brother on payment of Rs. 713.88 on 26th March, 1962. appellant was undergoing training in D. Pharmacy at K.G. Hospital Visakhapatnam, during years 1959 and 1960 and was then minor. There are two instances of sale of lands one on 14th May, 1958 and another on 21st May, 1960. assessee and his another minor brother represented by their father, assessee's father and his major sons are described as vendors in first sale deed. Sri Swamy argues that this fact in registered document would clearly prove that lands stated therein really belonged to HUF as, otherwise, there would have been no need for assessee and his brothers to have joined in execution of sale deed as vendors. Sri Kailasnath, on other hand, argues that sons joined in execution of sale deed only by way of abundant caution. We are unable to accept his contention for want of proof. sale deed is staring at us and we have to go only by what has been stated in sale deed. Therefore, we hold that assessee had established that lands covered by sale deed dt. 14th May, 1958 really belonged to HUF. ITO and CIT(A) erred in drawing contrary inference. same cannot be said of sale deed dt. 21st May, 1960, because that sale deed was executed only by assessee's father. It has been specifically stated therein that properties shown in said sale deed were self-acquired properties. Therefore, we hold that lands covered by sale deed cited supra did not belong to HUF. next question is whether assessee could have utilised sale proceeds of 1958 for acquiring medical shop which he did in 1962. It is submission of Sri Swamy that assessee was minor during 1959 to 1961 and that he was looked after by his father. During 1959 and 1960, assessee was receiving training in D. Pharmacy at K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, and was also in receipt of stipend of Rs. 40. As his needs were looked after by his father, his share of sale proceeds of 1958 sale were available for him to invest in purchase of medical shop in 1962. It is case of Department that whatever money that was available on account of these sales would have been exhausted. There is force in contention of Sri Swamy that assessee's father was not man of straw. This is evident from fact that he had at least 3.58 acres of land to be sold in 1960. That he used to borrow for expenses from others is evident from repayment of such borrowers by adjusting sale proceeds of lands sold. In fact, sale deed dt. 21st may, 1960 wherein father of assessee had sold his lands for total consideration of Rs. 18,000 mentions adjustment of loans taken by him in sum of Rs. 8,300 leaving balance of Rs. 9,700 to be paid to him. In light of above, we are inclined to hold that father would have taken care of minor son either from out of his own resources or from borrowings he used to make from time to time. It also stands to reason and common sense to state that no father would dissipate share of his minor son without first making inroads into his own earnings or properties. Therefore, we reject contention of Revenue that minor's share of sale proceeds of lands which were sold in 1958 would have been spent out. In fact, there is no evidence in this regard for drawing such inference. assessee had purchased medical shop only for sum of Rs. 713.88. cash available on account of sale of lands made on 14th May, 1958 is Rs. 4,000, not to speak of amounts that were already received in instalments from purchasers from time to time. There are five parties to this sale deed and share of minor would at least be Rs. 800. That was in year 1958. Even assuming for sake of argument that father had not made any further improvement to this sum of Rs. 800, said sum would certainly cover purchase consideration of medical shop which was only Rs. 713.88. Therefore, we hold that medical shop was purchased only from out of ancestral nucleus. In list of partition dt. 19th April, 1968, there is reference to earlier partition in respect of immovable properties and movable properties excluding properties mentioned in list. Sri B. Adinarayana Murty, brother of assessee, has stated that joint family lands were sold by his father on 14th May, 1958 and 21st May, 1960, that there was partition in 1960 in regard to silverware, gold jewellery and cash received out of sale proceeds of joint family lands sold by his father on 14th May, 1958 and 21st May, 1960 as also other movables. Sri Adinarayana Murty has stated that sum of Rs. 6,000 was partitioned in cash in favour of his brother, assessee. As against this, Sri Kailashnath refers to deposition of another brother of assessee Sri B. Satya Rao who had stated that nothing was given to him out of sale proceeds of lands by his father and that his father utilised sale proceeds to meet expenditure incurred in connection with his marriage and his brother's marriage. Sri Kailasnath argues that father had spent all sale proceeds. Sri Swamy submits that it may, Sri B. Satya Rao had not been given anything out of sale proceeds and he might have utilised his share for expenses incurred in connection with his marriage, but in our view nothing turns out of this deposition. Even if it is held that Sri B. Satya Rao did not receive any amount out of sale proceeds of lands, that does not mean that assessee did not receive anything towards his share of sale proceeds. Therefore, statement of Sri B. Satya Rao cannot be held against interests of assessee. Sri Kailasnath argues that assessee is stopped from claiming his status as that of HUF as he had shown income from medical shop in his individual assessment since inception, and in this connection he relied on judgment of Supreme Court cited (supra). That was case where assessee put up claim for trust which was rejected by Tribunal based on evidence and claim for trust which was rejected by Tribunal based on evidence and assessee had kept quiet for number of years and again revived claim. In that context, Supreme Court rejected claim of assessee. Thus, case relied on by Revenue is not on all fours with facts of case before us. Each year is separate unit of assessment and doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to income-tax proceedings. If assessee was smarting under erroneous impression of law with regard to his status, he is not estopped from making claim for being assessed in correct status at any point of time provided he is able to substantiate his claim. In this view of matter, we reject contention of Revenue. Thus, we hold that correct status of assessee is HUF and not individual. only other point of dispute for asst. yr. 1981-82 is regarding addition of Rs. 30,000 being deposits standing in name of assessee's wife. assessee's wife, Smt. Ramalakshmi, has made two deposits on 13th Oct., 1980 and 8th Nov., 1980 amounting to Rs. 30,000. assessee's father- in-law had stated in his letter dt. 24th Oct., 1981 addressed to ITO that he received Rs. 7,500 from assessee's father at time of marriage of his daughter Smt. Ramalakshmi. He also received presents up to Rs. 5,000 at time of marriage and this amount was kept with him from advances to rights for interest for some time and he paid Rs. 15,000 in all to his daughter. Smt. Ramalakshmi in her letter to ITO had confirmed letter of her father and stated that sum of Rs. 15,000 received from her father was advanced to rights for interest and this sum together with accumulations thereof amounted to Rs. 30,000 which she had invested in fixed deposits in State Bank of India at Narsipatnam on two different dates. Sri Padmanabhuni Seetharam, assessee's father-in-law, was also examined by ITO and sworn statement was obtained from him. In his sworn statement, he had confirmed contents of his letter referred to earlier. case of Department is that these are all self serving recitals to serve interest of assessee and that there is no corroborative evidence. Sri Swamy, on other hand, pleads that discharged pronotes were produced before ITO which would show that assessee s wife, Smt. Ramalakshmi, was in habit of lending monies to rights and, therefore, there was evidence to show that monies belonged to her. ITO noticed that assessee's father-in-law had large family, that he had only 10 acres of agricultural lands which were leased out to rights, that he was having kirana shop where only petty incomes were earned and that his financial position was not sound and, therefore, he rejected deposition of assessee's father in law. We find that ITO has really missed heart of matter. assessee's father-in-law did not state that he gave amount of Rs. 15,000 to his daughter out of his earnings. What he had stated is that he had received Rs. 7,500 from assessee's father at time of marriage of his daughter and presents were received upto Rs. 5,000 which he improved, thus accounting for Rs. 15,000. Therefore, ITO's conclusion that assessee's father-in-law is man of straw is not very germane to issue on hand. Discharged pronotes were produced before ITO to show that it was assessee's wife who was in habit of lending monies to rights. This is certainly piece of evidence in favour of assessee. Department has not established that amount advanced really belonged to assessee. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that assessee's wife had separate source for her funds which she had invested in fixed deposits. For this reason, we delete addition of Rs. 30,000 made for asst. yr. 1981-82. assessee obtained 1/4th share in house and 1/4th share in vacant site in partition list dt. 19th April, 1968 and, therefore, income from house property is properly assessable in hands of HUF. We direct I T O to exclude income from house property and medical shop from assessment in status of individual. In result, appeals are allowed. *** BHAVIRISETTY SURYANARAYANA MURTY v. INCOME TAX OFFICER