Uday Sinha, J.

1. The points falling for consideration in these references had been answered earlier in CIT V/s. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 and CIT V/s. Rambha Devi [1987] 164 ITR 658. Mr. K. N. Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, has once again agitated the same questions. Out of deference to him, I proceed to a reconsideration of his submissions. It only needs to be stated that the present assessee, Pushpa Devi, is different from the assessee, Pushpa Devi, in the decision referred to above.

2. In these references, we are concerned with the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The questions referred to us for our opinion are as follows:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessment orders, having been passed by the Income-tax Officer after necessary enquiries in pursuance of the scheme to help the new taxpayers in the small income groups launched by the Government, were not erroneous so as to enable the Commissioner of Income-tax to assume jurisdiction under Sec.263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that th