Sarjoo Prosad, J.

1. This is a reference made under Sec. 66 (2) of the Income tax Act by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under the directions of this Court. The assessee is a firm called Jitanram Nirmalram. The firm was assessed to income-tax for the year 1945-46 on a total income of Rs. 3,12,831. This amount included three sums of cash-credits which appeared in the accounts of the partners. They are as follows: a sum of Rs. 1,46,126 given by the partner Ramchandram, a sum of Rs. 55,871 by the partner Laehminarain and a sum of Rs. 73,121 by he partner Vishnu Prasad. The Income tax Officer treated these cash amounts as secreted profits of the firm and assessed them as such. On appeal the Appellate Assistants Commissioner of Income-tax held that the sum of Rs. 2,75,178 may have been the sale proceeds of family ornaments as claimed by the assessee. The concluding part of his order is in the following terms:

"As the I. T. O. has not mentioned the defects in the goods accounts and has not properly scrutinised them and even though the additions made by the I. T. O. cannot be maintained, the case should go back to the I. T. O. for re-examination of the goods accounts and the books in general. Hence this portion of the order of the I.T.O. will be set aside. The cash credit addition must go and the I. T. O. will re examine the position by reference to the account books in the light of the facts and figures mentioned in paras. 27 to 29 above." It may be stated here that paras. 27 to 29 of his order relate to the consideration of the point as to whether the profits shown by the assessee were prima facie ridiculously low and this point again the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was considering in connection with the argument of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the contention of the asseesee in regard to the cash credit amount. Against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner there was an appeal to the Tribunal under Sec.33 (2) of the Income-tax Act mainly on the ground that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong in holding that the cash credits of Rs. 2,75,178 did not represent secreted income as held by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the said amount claimed as cash credit by the assessee and allowed the appeal of the department. The Tribunal held as follows: "Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and disbelieving the story of the receipt of the ornaments through the partition by the members of the family, we hold that the cash credits in question remain un-explained and the aasessees explanation about them is false. We further held that they are secreted profits of the business and are liable to be added to the income of the firm. We, therefore, reverse the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this point and affirm the findings of the Income-tax Officer in this respect."

It is on these facts that a reference was called for on two points formulated by this Court. They are :

"(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and in the circumstances of this case in deciding the appeal without setting aside the order of remand passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by which he directed the Income-tax Officer to examine the goods accounts.

(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in giving a finding as to whether Rs. 2,75,178 represented secreted profits from business assessable in 1945-46 before the completion of examination of the accounts as directed by the remand order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,"

The second point is really involved in the first point. In order to understand the implication of the points formulated, it should be mentioned that the Tribunal at one place in their judgment when disposing of the appeal observed thus:

"As the examination of the accounts is the subject matter of remand order passed by the Appe