SAEBDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-The following questions have been referred to us for decision by the Department under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 :- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the I. T. O. To accept the return of income filed under self-assessment scheme when the said scheme is no bar for the I. T. O. To proceed under normal law and this discretion is vested in the I. T. O. By rule 16 of the Income-tax rules regarding self-assessment procedure.
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income---tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to accept the return of income Sled under self- assessm ent scheme when no books of accounts are maintained by the "assessee and there was no compliance of the rule 46 of the Income-tax Rules, which requires that a statement of account should accompany the return of Income."
2. The return of the assesses/respondent was rejected by the Income-tax Officer under the self- assessm ent scheme on the sole ground that he had not maintained any books of accounts. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, reversed the decision of Income-tax Officer and directed that the return filed by the respondent may be decided in accordance with the self-assessment scheme as it fulfilled all the requirements of that scheme.
3. We considered similar question referred by the Department in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Khushi Muhammad I. T. R. No. 314 of 1972, decided on 31-3-1983 and after examining in detail the provisions of the scheme and the power of the Income-tax Officer under rule 46 of the Income-tax Rules, held that if the income-tax return filed by an assess fulfilled all the requirements of the scheme then unless it is found by the Income-tax Officer that the return filed by assessee did not disclose the correct income it could not reject the same and proceed to decide the same in accordance with the normal procedure prescribed under the Act. Thai learned counsel for the Department, who also appeared before us in the above case is unable to draw any distinction between that case and the present case. We, accordingly answer the questions referred to above in the affirmative but would make no order as to costs.