JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The statement of the case given by the income tax Appellate Tribunal correctly presents the facts out of which the following question of law has been referred to: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is correct in holding that the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in giving a direction u/s 34(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 that the amount is assessable in the assessment year 1948-49. 2. The facts may be stated in brief. The Assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It carries on business as a wholesale dealer in food grains, oil, etc. The assessment year (sic) 1949-50 and the relevant accounting year is from 1.4.1948 to 31-3-1949. Originally the assessment was made on an income of Rs. 21,29'2/- Later on, while going through the accounts of the Assessee, the' Income Tax Officer found that there was a credit of Rs. 31,00/- on 21-11-1947 in the name of M/s. Noonkarandas Maturam of Raigarh. He accordingly started,a proceeding under Section, 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. On re-assessment, the Income Tax Officer held that Rs. 31,000/- was the concealed income of the Assessee and added, it to the assessment previously made. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 31,000/- did not fan in the accounting year in question, and as such was not assessable for the assessment year 1949-50. He however gave a direction u/s 34, Sub-section (3), second proviso for taking into consideration the aforesaid amount for the assessment year 1948-49. The appeal against that order before the Appellate Tribunal failed. The income tax Appellate Tribunal refused to make a reference. The Assessee accordingly filed an application in the High Court to call for a reference. The High Court framed the aforesaid question and asked for a reference. 3. The sole question for consideration in this reference is whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in giving, a direction that the aforesaid Rs. 31,000/- should be treated as concealed income in respect of the assessment year 1918-49 which was not the subject matter of appeal. There were conflicting authorities on this point amongst the different High Courts in India, but the matter has been pet at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur Vs. 31,000/- should be treated as concealed income in respect of the assessment year 1918-49 which was not the subject matter of appeal. There were conflicting authorities on this point amongst the different High Courts in India, but the matter has been pet at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, Lakhimpur Kheri. The majority took the view that the expressions "finding" and 'direction" in the second proviso to Section 34, Sub-section (3) mean respectively a finding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment for the year in question "and" a direction which the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, is empowered to give under the Sections mentioned in that proviso". It is open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to hold on the evidence that the income shown by the Assessee or by the Department is not the income for the relevant year and thereby exclude that income from the assessment of the year under appeal. It was further said that the he may incidentally find that the income belongs to another year, but that is not a finding necessary for the disposal of the appeal in respect of the year of assessment in question. The second proviso to Section 34(3) does not save the time limit., prescribed u/s 34(1) in respect of an escaped assessment of a year other than that which is the subject matter of appeal or revision, as the case may be. This view was subsequently followed in Bhanji Bagawandas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, . 4. On the aforesaid decision, we are satisfied that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the income tax Appellate Tribunal were wrong in giving a direction I that the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, should be added to the income of the year 1948-49 as a concealed income. 5. We accordingly answer the question by saying that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in giving a direction u/s 34(3) that the amount is assessable in the assessment year 1948-49. In the circumstances there will be no order as to coats. The fee deposited for the reference may be refunded. R.N. Misra, J. 6. I agree.