DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J. - (1.) IT appears that the paper book prepared in this reference by the Revenue is incomplete. The order of the Income -tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal from the order of the Income -tax Officer in the proceedings under Section 104 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, in respect of which questions have been directed to be referred by this court have not been included in the paper book. It also appears that the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, as also the order of this court passed under Section 256(2) of the Act directing the Tribunal to refer the questions are also not included.
(2.) IN spite of the aforesaid, learned advocate for the Revenue and Mr. R.N. Dutt, learned advocate, who was appointed by us as amicus curiae, as no one was appearing for the assessee, submitted that the question can be answered on the basis of the order of the Tribunal where the orders ofthe Income -tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had been dealt with. Accordingly, we have taken up the hearing of this reference.
(3.) THE material facts are, inter alia, that in the assessment year 1962 -63, the relevant accounting year ending on April 12, 1962, M/s. Chemical Agents (P) Ltd. the assessee, was assessed to income -tax. The assessee had shown a loss of Rs. 2,975 in its return. The Income -tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,15,679 to the income of the assessee. Certain deposits appearing in the accounts of the assessee were claimed by the assessee to represent loans from managing directors of the assessee. The assessee had also claimed deduction of interest paid to creditors. The Income -tax Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee and treated the said deposits as income from undisclosed sources.;