1. ' V. G. OAK, C. J.-This Is a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a registered firm. Its main business is of forest contracts. The assessment year was 1957-58; the accounting period was from October 26, 1955, to October 13, 1956. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the return submitted by the assessee. He made an addition of Rs, 1,23,000.
2. This addition included a sum of Rs, 1,00,000 introduced in the head office cash book. When the matter went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he concluded that the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 represents income introduced in November, 1955. That was outside the financial year 1956- 57, relevant to the assessm ent year 1957-58. That item of Rs, 1,00,000 was, therefore, deleted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He went on to observe that that item of Rs, 1,00,000 represents income from an undisclosed source for the assessment year 1956-57. When the matter went before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee objected to the observations of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the effect that the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 represents income from an undisclosed source for the assessm ent year 1956-57. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention, and held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not competent to give a finding that the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 was assessable in the year 1956-57.
3. ' At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. U.P., the Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law to this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal correctly held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not competent to give a finding that the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 was assessable in the year 1956-577"
4. ' In Hazari La! v. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur (1), it was held that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner un of the Income-tax Act was limited to matters which he was decide when passing an order in appeal in conformity with An order passed by him which was beyond the scope of section be an order without jurisdiction.
5. ' Similarly, in Income-tax Officer, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bh was explained by the Supreme Court that the jurisdiction Assistant Commissioner under section 31 was strictly assessment order of the particular year under appeal. Gwan Das (2), it of the Appellate confined to the assessment order of the particular year under appeal.
6. ' In the present case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dealing with the propriety of the assessm ent for the assessm ent year 1957-58. He found that the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 did not relate to that year. That finding was sufficient to dispose of the item of Rs, 1,00,000. He could not record a definite finding that this very item represented income of the assessee from an undisclosed source for the assessm ent year 1956-57. The Tribunal was right in reversing the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this point.
7. ' Our answer to the question referred to the Court is therefore that the Tribunal correctly held that the Appellate Assistant Commissoner was not competent to give a finding that the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 was assessable in the year 1956-57. The question is answered in favour of the assessee.
8. The Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., shall pay the assessee Rs, 200 as costs of the reference.
(1) (1960) 39 I T R 265 (All.) ( ) (1964)52 I T R 335