OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) RAISING the following identical questions in all these applications, filed under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, relating to asst. yrs. 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the CIT, Agra, has prayed that the Tribunal be defected to refer these questions for the opinion of this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of S. 263 are not applicable and in cancelling the order of the CIT passed under s. 263 ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal's decision that mere failure on the part of the ITO to make enquiries and investigation regarding the assessee's versions and his acceptance of whatever has been said by the assessee in the return and the papers accompanying it without any enquiry regarding sources of income and its ownership is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the ITO' s order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and that something more should be shown indicating loss of revenue and if this is not done, the order of the CIT could be said to be suffering from legal infirmity ? 3. Whether, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the cases of J.P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All), and that of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.K. Metal Works 1977 CTR (P&H) 99 : (1978) 112 ITR 445 (P&H), have been correctly applied in the facts and circumstances of this case ? 4. Whether, the Hon'ble Tribunal is legally justified in rejecting the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court quoted extensively in the Annexe "A' to the CIT's order under s. 263 and whether its interpretation of the ratio decided in these cases is correct ? 5. Whether, the fact, that in circumstances similar to this case, the Hon'ble Tribunal in the two cases mentioned in the statements of facts, has itself found the CIT's order under S. 263 to be legally correct is in itself sufficient to show that the questions of law do arise from the Tribunal's order ?"
(2.) THE assessee is a family trust. It filed returns for the three years in question showing income of varying amounts. The assessee trust was assessed for the asst. yr. 1980-81 also and then the ITO took the view that the income of the assessee trust, being a specific trust, is exempt. He repeated the same view for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1983-84. Whereas, the CIT did not feel aggrieved by the order relating to the asst. yrs. 1980-81, he issued notices under S. 263 of the Act to the assessee and passed the impugned order stating in paragraph 12 that the assessment orders for all the three years had been made in undue haste and without proper enquiry. The assessee challenged the combined order to the CIT before the Tribunal. The latter reversed the order of the CIT holding that the CIT failed to show that the order were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
(3.) INVOLVING similar facts and submissions, the Revenue filed applications under S. 256(2) of the Act, in the case of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, Agra, being Income-tax Applications Nos. 101 and 102 of 1987 since reported as (1988) 67 CTR (All) 206.;