R.K. Gulatt, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review or recalling of our order dated January 22, 1987, passed in I.T.R. No. 1141 of 1977 (Addl. CIT v. Hasmat Rai Raj Pal [1987] 167 ITR 794) by which two questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), were answered against the applicant, M/s. Hasmat Rai Raj Pal. The aforesaid reference related to the assessment year 1960-61.
(2.) THE assertions made in this application are that against a consolidated order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the Revenue had sought two references under Section 256(2) of the Act, one for each year. The reference relating to the assessment year 1961-62, being I.T.R. No. 370 of 1980 was decided in the absence of the applicant but in its favour, by a Division Bench of this court, vide its order dated April 8, 1985 ([1985] UPTC 591). It was held in this reference that there was no failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completing the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62 and thus reassessment proceedings initiated for that year were bad. As the applicant was not aware of the aforesaid decision given in I.T.R. No. 370 of 1980, it could not bring to our notice that decision which was in its favour when the matter relating to the assessment for the year 1960-61 was heard and decided by us, vide our order dated January 22, 1987. It is asserted that the decision given by us runs counter to the earlier decision and, therefore, our order requires a review or recalling thereof and should be disposed of afresh in terms of the order passed in I.T.R. No. 370 of 1980. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and do not find any merit in this application.
(3.) THERE were a number of cash credits found recorded in the books of the assessee maintained for the assessment year 1961-62. Two items, out of such deposits, each amounting to Rs. 25,000, fell in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61. Notwithstanding that those two items of cash credits were recorded in the books of the assessee maintained for the assessment year 1961-62, the Income-tax Officer assessed those deposits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the assessment year 1960-61, taking the financial year as the previous year. The remaining items of cash credits were brought to tax in the assessment year 1961-62. It may be noted that all items of cash credits assessed in the respective two years were taxed by taking reassessment proceedings with the aid of Section 148 of the Act. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the appeal for the assessment year 1960-61, took the view that the two items of deposits taxed in that year were not liable to be sustained. It gave two reasons for it. Firstly, when action under Section 148 was taken, the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 had been repealed and thus the disputed deposits could be assessed only in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held, according to the provisions of the latter Act, that the disputed items, being unexplained deposits, which were found recorded in the books of the assessee could only be assessed in the assessment year 1961-62 taking the previous year as adopted by the assessee and on which it maintained its books of account. These could not be assessed taking the financial year as the previous year which was possible only Under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which had no application in the present case.;