Ajit K.Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84, the following questions of law have been referred to this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in recalling its earlier order dated August 7, 1990, without recording a finding that the said order suffered from a mistake apparent from the records" Without prejudice to question No. 1, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the miscellaneous application of the assessee on the ground that its order dated August 7, 1990, suffers from mistakes apparent from the records ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Tribunal has no inherent power like a court of law to review its own order"
(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are that the Assessing Officer found from the loose sheet seized with serial No, 2 containing several entries such as payment of Rs. 2,50,000 to one Anup Babu made on July 5, 1982, and Rs. 1,50,000 paid to one Sri Manikji on July 3, 1982. A receipt of Rs. 50,000 on July 3, 1982, from R. T. Co., Delhi, was also found. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee could not explain the above payments and receipts. The Assessing Officer treated the net investment of Rs. 3,50,000 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
(3.) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that narration in the loose sheet indicated a sort of memorandum inasmuch as instruction was given by the person writing to verify the correctness. He further observed that the Assessing Officer has no direct proof that the assessee had made the investments.;