The Tribunal does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to remove the bar of limitation and to proceed on the basis of a return long after the period prescribed by Section 34 (3) of the Act.

( 1 ) THE following question of law has been REFERRED TO to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench "a") arising out of its order dated 20-7-1966.

( 2 ) WHETHER the Tribunal having held that the order of assessment for the year 1961-62 made under S. 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid, could restore the case to the file of the Income-tax Officer and direct him to proceed from the return stage and make fresh assessment according to law under the Income-tax Act, 1922?"

( 3 ) THE applicant Shri Narinder Singh Dhingra is assessed as Hindu un-divided family as its Karta. The Hindu un-divided family is a partner in various partnership concerns and has also interest income from deposits and is also in receipt of dividends from certain shares. Shri Narinder Singh was co-opted as Director of Messrs Olympus Optical Instruments Manufacturing Co. (P) Limited, New Delhi and in that pacity he was paid Director s remuneration of Rs. 10,800. 00 besides Director s fee of Rs. 600. 00 for attending meetings of the Board of Directors.

( 4 ) ON 8-3-1962 the family filed return of income before the Income-tax Officer. A separate return was filed by Shri Narinder Singh in the status of an individual declaring income of Rs. 19,002. 00 being income from remuneration received by him as Director and fee received for attending meetings of Board of Directors. Assessment proceedings were started by the Income-tax Officer vide notice dated 1-7-1962 under Section 23 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 but were not finalised. Assessment proceedings were again started by his successor vide notice dated 1-6-1964 on new series of forms labelled as I. T. No. 23 and were finalised on 20-7-1964. The assessment was labelled as under S. 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In addition to the income declared by the Hindu undivided family. Director s remuneration of Rs. 10,800. 00 and fees of Rs. 600. 00 were held to be income of the Hindu un-divided family and included in its assessment. The assessee preferred TO an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 20-8-1964. The appeal was disposed of by him on 25-1-1965. The order of the Income-tax Officer was up-held including the Director s remuneration and fees in the assessment of the Hindu un-divided family.

( 5 ) THE assessee thereupon preferred TO a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal challenging this finding. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that as the return was filed before 31-3-1962. the assessment ought to have been completed under the old Act under Section 23 (3) thereof and not under Section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as had been done by the Income-tax Officer. By its order dated 20th July, 1966 the Tribunal allowed the preliminary objection taken in the appeal before it, viz. that the assessment was invalid because it was made under the new Act. In paragraph 4 of its order the Tribunal stated as follows:-

"the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the case is restored to the file on the Income-tax Officer. He should proceed from the return stage and make a fresh assessment according to law under the old Act, viz. , the Income-tax Act, 1922".

( 6 ) IT is this part of the order of the Tribunal by which the assessee felt aggrieved and he asked for the question of law mentioned above being REFERRED TO to this Court.

( 7 ) IT is apparent that as the return was filed before 31-3-1962, the proceedings for assessment had to be completed under Section 297 (2) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 under the Income-tax Act of 1922. Under Section 34 (3) of that Act the assessment had to be completed within four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable. In the present case, the previous year ended on 31-3-1961, the assessment year being 1961-62, and therefore no assessment could be made after the expiry of four years from that period. The Tribunal