Deb, J. - (1.) The questions, in this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are as follows: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the assessment made for the earlier assessment years the ITO was entitled to reject the assessee's explanation based on the findings for the earlier assessment years and on that ground to come to his own conclusion regarding the deposits involved in the present assessment year ?
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is material to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs, 1,00,000 was income of the assessee from undisclosed sources?" 2. The assessment year is 1960-61. The previous year ends on March 31, 1960. The return was filed by the assessee showing an income of Rs. 5,944. In the course of the assessment proceedings it was found by the ITO that the assessee had an account in the names of two firms and in that account she had shown deposits of Rs. 1 lakh made by her in those two firms. She was asked to explain the source of these two deposits but she has refused to do so by saying that the ITO has no jurisdiction to call for such explanation. The ITO, on the materials before him, has added this sum as her income from undisclosed sources.
(3.) It was contended in the first appeal on her behalf that this sum was saved by her from her earnings in the earlier years and the assessments made in those earlier years were binding on the tax officer. The AAC has allowed the appeal by holding that the earlier assessments cannot be disturbed, but it has been set aside by the Tribunal on appeal filed by the department. It has been held by the Tribunal that the assessment orders of the earlier years, have no evidentiary value inasmach as those assessments were made practically on the same day the returns were filed by the assessee in the same manner as was done in the cases of all the female members of the same family who had also shown deposits of large sums of money in the names of fictitious firms and the same thing has been done by the assessee. The Tribunal has also rejected the explanations offered by the assessee.;