Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) This reference under Section 256(1) relates to two series of assessment years, one from 1972-73 to 1974-75, and the other from 1976-77 to 1981-82. Thus there are nine assessment years involved and some of the questions raised are common to all the years and some common to some of the years. We have arranged the questions in the following manner : Assessment years : 1972-73 to 1974-75 and 1976-77 to 1981-82 : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that non-computation of tax in the body of the assessment order under Section 143(3) or 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not invalidate the order when the amount of tax was mentioned in the demand notice"
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the stand of the assessee : (a) That the return of income signed and verified by one of the liquidators was non est in law and the assessment made on that basis was ab initio void ? (b) That the assessee-company, a company in liquidation, had no taxable income within the meaning of Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (c) That there being no rate of tax prescribed for a company in liquidation in any of the relevant Finance Acts, no income of the assessee could be charged to tax under Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" For assessment years 1972-73, 1976-77 and 1980-81 : "(d) That, in view of winding of the assessee-company with effect from February 10, 1970, no capital assets were held by it after December 10, 1970. As such, no capital gains tax could be imposed upon it or the liquidators ?" For assessment year 1972-73 : "3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding :-- (a) That Section 144B was applicable to reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (b) That remitting of the draft assessment order by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to the Income-tax Officer for further consideration and if necessary for resubmission did not debar the Income-tax Officer from forwarding another draft assessment order to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (c) That the second reference under Section 144B by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was valid and as such the time taken in issuing directions under Section 144B(4) was to be excluded under Section 153(3), Explanation 1(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? As such, the reassessment was not barred by limitation ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in estimating the cost of acquisition of the capital assets even though reference was made to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, who did not pass any order and expressed inability to ascertain the market value of the assets ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding : (a) That the Income-tax Officer was justified in rejecting the estimate of cost of acquisition of the capital assets made by the approved valuer ? (b) That the Income-tax Officer correctly estimated the cost of acquisition as on January 1, 1954, by setting off depreciation against inflation in the price and thereby taking the book value (purchase price) of the said assets as their cost of acquisition on January 1, 1954 ?" For assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77 to 1981-82 : "6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of entire expenses on salaries, audit fees, miscellaneous expenses and bank charges out of income of interest on fixed deposits assessed under the head 'Income from other sources' except the proportionate expenses incurred for earning the income of interest ?" For assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 : "7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of interest paid on debentures out of income by way of interest on fixed deposits assessed under the head 'Income from other sources'?" For assessment year 1974-75 : "8. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reference under Section 144B was not necessary while making reassessment in compliance with the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the variation in the income was less than Rs. 1 lakh ?" For assessment year 1976-77 : "9. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the initiation of proceeding by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was legal ?" For assessment year 1979-80 : "10. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment was not barred by limitation ?" 2. The first question is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 634. Following the said decision, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. (2)(a) is concluded by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in United Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (In liquidation) v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 794 (Income-tax Reference No. 393 of 1980), where the judgment was delivered on August 4, 1989. Following the said decision, we answer question No. 2(a) by saying that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the stand of the assessee and the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Questions Nos. 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) are concluded by the decision of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 319 of 1982 (United Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (In liquidation) v. CIT), where the judgment was delivered on April 4 and 5, 1990. Following the said decision, we answer the aforesaid questions by saying that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the stand of the assessee. Thus the questions are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
(3.) The third and sixth questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue following the judgment delivered by this court on April 7, 1992. Income-tax Reference No. 229 of 1987 (Arrah Sasaram Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 807).;