JUDGMENT B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. Two questions are referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, one at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the Revenue.
2. The question referred at the instance of the assessee reads thus :
"(1) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer on October 31, 1972, under Section 23(3)/33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was valid in law in view of the assessment order dated March 14, .1967, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"
3. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue reads as follows :
"(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the additions other than the addition of Rs. 4,09,067 on account of speculation loss and Rs. 82,000 being cash credit in the name of Sri. S. D. Mittal made by the Income-tax Officer could not be legally sustained, in view of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 33B of the old Act ?"
4. So far as the question referred at the instance of the assessee is concerned, Mr. V, B. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the assessee, fairly stated that the question may be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We are satisfied that learned counsel is right in his submission. The assessment was made in the assessment year 1946-47. The Commissioner reopened the assessment under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Meanwhile, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment under Section 34 of the said 1922 Act. The reopening of the assessment by the Commissioner under Section 33B was questioned by the assessee unsuccessfully in this court. After this court's order upholding the validity of the Commissioner's order, the Income-tax Officer dropped proceedings initiated by him under Section 34 of the Act. In the above circumstances, the question referred does not really arise or survive for decision. The first question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
5. So far as the second question is concerned, we are of the opinion that it too must be answered in the affirmative. The facts relevant to this question are the following :
An assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer for the aforesaid assessment year. Inter alia, he allowed deduction of a sum of Rs. 4,09,067 as speculation loss. He also accepted the assessee's case and refused to add a sum of Rs. 82,000 being cash credit in the name of one Sri S. D. Mittal, in the balance-sheet of the current account of the assessee. The Commissioner, on examination of the assessment order, was of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer's action in respect of the above two items was unsustainable and prejudicial to the Revenue and, accordingly, he issued a show-cause notice, calling upon the assessee to explain why the speculation loss should not be disallowed and why the sum of Rs. 82,000 be not added to the assessee's income as unexplained deposit. Though the copy of the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 33B is not filed before us, its purport has been set out in the final order of the Commissioner passed under Section 33B. Para 4 of the said order reads thus :
"All the above circumstances lead me to the conclusion that the order of the Income-tax Officer has been prejudicial to the Revenue. Accordingly, a notice under Section 33B was issued to show cause why the assessment should not be set aside to be done de novo by the Income-tax Officer after initiating proper enquiries regarding the amounts mentioned above."
6. The operative portion of the Commissioner's order reiterated the same position. It would be evident from a reading of para 7 which reads :
"I, therefore, hold that I am within my jurisdiction to vacate under Section 33B the order passed by the Income-tax/Officer on March 29, 1951, in respect of the assessment year 1946-47. The second objection of the learned advocate, being not clarified, cannot be accepted.
The assessment order for the year 1946-47 is, accordingly, vacated for reasons given in paras 2 to 4 above."
7. It is thus clear that the Commissioner's order limits the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction only to two items mentioned above. If so, the Income-tax Officer had no power to add other amounts or to make other additions to the assessee's income. His enquiry was limited only to the two items mentioned above. This is what the Tribunal has stated and we agree with it. The decision of this court in Chittarmal Narain Dass v. CST [1969] 24 STC 451 affirms the same principle. For the above reasons, question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
8. The income-tax reference is disposed of accordingly. No costs.