Om Prakash, J. - (1.) These are two applications made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment years 1979-80 and J980-81 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, by which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the case on the following questions for the opinion of this court : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in view of the legal position as mentioned in the statement of facts, the Tribunal could be said to be legally correct in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax ? (2) Whether there is any legal basis for the hon'ble Tribunal to come to the conclusion that notice under Section 263 was issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax merely on suspicion and he had no cogent material before him for initiating the proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the, Allahabad High Court reported in Srivastava (J. P.) & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 has been correctly applied by the Tribunal ? (4) Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in not accepting the Department's contention that the order under Section 263 is valid in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 ? (5) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, failure on the part of the Income-tax Officer to make proper and adequate enquiries is by itself not sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 263 which confers jurisdiction in respect of an order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? (6) Whether the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is legally correct in not giving a finding as to how the decisions given in the following cases by the High Courts and relied upon by the Commissioner in his order under Section 263 are not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case ? The cases are : 1. Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) ;
(2.) Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1981] 136 ITR 243 (Raj); and
(3.) Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar) ? " 2. The assessee, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, Agra, a specific trust, was created on January 24, 1973, under a trust deed by Smt. Sudha Agrawal with a corpus of Rs. 500 for the benefit of the beneficiaries. The assessee filed returns for the first time for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 on February 20, 1982, showing incomes of Rs. 39,540 and of Rs. 38,420, respectively, in the status of a private specific trust. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessments for both the years on a single day, viz., November 25, 1982. Both the orders are couched in identical language. Therefore, it will suffice if only one order is reproduced for appreciation of the case. The assessment order for the assessment year 1979-80 runs as follows: "Return filed declaring an income of Rs. 39,540. In response to a notice under Section 143(2), Shri D. K. Agarwal, CA, attended. Case discussed. This is a case of Private Family Specific Trust, in which shares of beneficiaries are specified. Therefore, income in the hands of the trust is exempt and taxable in the hands of beneficiaries. The trust has been created, vide trust deed dated January 24, 1973, a copy of which has been filed and placed on record, for the benefit of beneficiaries, Km. Mira Agarwal, Km. Usha Agarwal, Km. Rekha Agarwal and Master Kapil Agarwal. After discussion and scrutiny, income returned is accepted. Share of each beneficiary comes to Rs. 9,890. Assessed. Issue N. D. " 3. Thereafter, notices under Section 263 were issued to the assessee by the Commissioner of Income-tax for "both the years calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why assessment orders be not cancelled, as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the Commissioner set aside the assessment orders for both the years directing the Income-tax Officer to make the assessments de novo. The Commissioner was of the view that the orders for both the years were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, inasmuch as they were passed by the Income-tax Officer "......in haste/hurry without proper and adequate enquiry...... ". The Commissioner also observed that the orders do not show "How and in what manner and with what capital the trust conducted its business relating to handloom daris and it is not at all clear from the papers filed." He also added that the record shows that the books of account of the trust were never produced before the Income-tax Officer for scrutiny, that no tick marks were made on any papers filed by the trust along with the return and that the assessment was made in one hearing, without requiring the presence of the trustees. The Commissioner finally concluded : " that an assessment made in haste/hurry without proper and adequate enquiry/investigation is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.... ";