V.K.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE Income -tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated September 10, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1972 -73 under Section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) that the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, could not be invoked in this case and in deleting the addition made on this account ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), deleting the addition of Rs. 4,29,593 made by the Income -tax Officer on account of profit on the amalgamation of the companies, Eastern Trading Syndicate, Jaipur, and Shree Vijay Laxmi Trading Ltd., Pali, Marwar, with the assessee company ?'
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee in respect of the period ending on December 31, 1971, was completed by the Income -tax Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act and deduction under section 47(vi) was claimed for a sum of Rs. 4,25,415 which was the profit arising out of the amalgamation of Eastern Trading' Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., with Shree Vijay Laxmi Trading Company Ltd. (sic). The Income -tax Officer was of the view that this surplus which has been claimed under Section 47(vi) of the Act is allowable and the claim appears to be proper. Besides allowing this item as not liable to tax, tax was levied in respect of different sources of income including tax on capital gains and income from rent, etc. The assessee has challenged the liability for the capital gains and the rental income which was determined by the Income -tax Officer before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment order for the purpose of recomputing the capital gains after affording proper opportunity to the assessee and for the purpose of recomputing the rental income of the property known as 4, Fairlie Place, Calcutta. In respect of other grounds of appeal, relief of Rs. 445 was given to the assessee. In pursuance of the direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income -tax Officer framed the assessment order and referred the same to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144A of the Income -tax Act. The assessee was given opportunity and after hearing the assessee, a direction was given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that the profit arising out of amalgamation is liable to tax. The present controversy is only with regard to this addition which was made by the Income tax Officer on the directions being given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as to whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could have given such a direction under Section 144A in respect of a source of income which was considered by him as exempt and not liable to tax in the original assessment order and for which no appeal was filed by the assessee and the directions by the appellate authority were only in respect of the capital gains and income from rent.
(3.) MR . Bafna has relied on the decision of this court in the case of Rambilas Chandram v. CIT wherein it was observed that where a case is sent back to the Income -tax Officer without any restrictions, then the Income -tax Officer can make additions of such source of the income of the assessee in the first assessment, he can make such addition in the fresh order of assessment.;