S.C. Sen, J. - (1.)The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this Court under Sec. 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the return of income furnished by the assessee was a valid return of income within the meaning of Sec. 139(4) read with Sec. 139(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961?

(2.)If the answer to Question No. (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the assessment made by the Income -tax Officer within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year on the basis of the return of income furnished by the assessee as void?
The facts briefly are that there was a search in the premises of the assessee in December 1965 and some account books were seized therefrom. On perusal of those books, the ITO came to believe that the income of the assessee from pawn -booking business for the assessment years 1964 -65 and 1965 -66 had escaped the assessment. He, therefore, served notices under Sec. 148 of the Act, for these two years on the assessee on 3 -2 -1967. No status was shown in those notices. The notices also did not have any column for that purpose. In response to these notices, the assessee filed returns on 17 -2 -1967 showing the status of HUF on which the ITO completed the assessments determining the total income at Rs. 34,759 for the assessment year 1964 -65 and Rs. 29,507 for the assessment year 1965 -66.

2. The assessee filed appeals before the AAC and contended that the assessments were illegal and ab initio void. It was pointed out that whereas the assessments were completed in the status of HUF, the notices under Sec. 148 were issued in the name of Shri Keshardeo Bubna, without giving any indication of the status of the assessee. It was argued that the notices under Sec. 148 which were addressed to the individual Shri Keshardeo Bubna could not be made a valid foundation for proceedings to reassess the income of the HUF of which Shri Bubna was the karta. The AAC held that the notices were defective and not valid in the eye of law and as such the assessment proceedings based on the same were ab initio void. She, accordingly, cancelled both the assessments.

(3.)Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the ITO that on the facts of this case a valid notice has been issued by the ITO under Sec. 147 of the Act. It was also argued that the returns filed by the assessee were valid as these returns could have been filed voluntarily on the dates they were filed under the provisions of Sec. 139(4) of the Act.