- (1.) THIS order will dispose of Income-tax Case No. 31 of 1979, relating to the assessment year 1968-69 and Income-tax Case No. 32 of 1979, relating to the assessment year 1972-73, as the questions of law required to be referred are the same in both the cases.
(2.) THE assessee required the Tribunal to refer three questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order dated 7th March, 1978, for the opinion of this court, but the Tribunal declined to refer any of the question as in its opinion no question of law arises out of its said order. The three questions of law proposed by the assessee are as under : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer under the provisions of Section 147 was not covered by Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently, the Commissioner was not precluded from revising the assessment order under Section 263 ? 2. Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was 'erroneous' as contemplated under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the Commissioner was competent to revise the assessment ?
(3.) WHETHER the order under Section 263 as made by the Commissioner of Income-tax for setting aside the assessment with the directions to the Income-tax Officer to frame a fresh assessment under the law after making proper investigation and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain his case is not vitiated and illegal in view of the opinion expressed by him in the order that the explanation with regard to the source of investment in the purchase of agricultural lands is not satisfactory and should not have been accepted ? " 3. The Motion Bench at the time of hearing admitted the application as regards questions Nos. 1 and 3 only. It has been further observed by the Motion Bench that "mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly states that question No. 2 does not raise any question of law and, therefore, does not press for the same", and equally fairly Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondent, states that" question No. 1 may well give rise to the question of law because it does not appear to be concluded by a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court".;