Judgment Nazir Ahmad, J. 1. A statement of the case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, under Sec. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1922 Act"), although the reference application was filed under Sec.256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as" the 1961 Act"), referring the following questions of law for the opinion of this court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that no competent appeal lay before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of the Income-tax Officer ? (2) Whether in view of the finding of the Tribunal that there was no competent appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal was correct in entertaining the departmental appeal and in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Sec.34(1D) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was a bar to the Revenue in rectifying the assessment order for the assessment year 1947-48 in the manner done by the Income-tax Officer ?" Before the facts are taken up, it is necessary to point out that the question of assessment relates to the assessee, Chatturam. Chatturam died during the pendency of the Taxation Case No. 47 of 1976 and an application was filed by Ram Chandra Prasad Bhadani, son of Chatturam, claiming that Chatturam, the petitioner, in Taxation Case No. 47 of 1976, had died leaving behind several sons and daughters who are members of the Hindu joint family and Ram Chandra Prasad Bhadani is the eldest son of Chatturam and he is the karta of the family and he prayed for permission to prosecute Taxation Case No. 47 of 1976 as legal representative of the deceased assessee, Chatturam, The prayer was allowed. It is under these circumstances that Ram Chandra Prasad Bhadani has been impleaded as the petitioner being the legal representative of Chatturam. 2 It is also necessary to point out that Chatturam had also filed Taxation Case No. 16 of 1972 relating to the assessment year 1947-48 which is the assessment year involved in the present case before us and Taxation Case No. 16 of 1972 was disposed of along with Taxation Cases Nos. 2 It is also necessary to point out that Chatturam had also filed Taxation Case No. 16 of 1972 relating to the assessment year 1947-48 which is the assessment year involved in the present case before us and Taxation Case No. 16 of 1972 was disposed of along with Taxation Cases Nos. 17 of 1972, 44 of 1975 and 39 to 41 of 1976, by a consolidated order dated May 14, 1985. The consolidated order of this court in Guru Prasad V/s. C1T [1986] 158 ITR 278 dated May 14, 1985, shows that Taxation Case No. 16 of 1972 was discussed in paragraphs 70 to 74 of the aforesaid consolidated order. It is evident from a perusal of paragraphs 70 to 74 that the Income-tax Officer assessed the income of Rs. 1,27,000 as secreted profits of business along with other income and by his assessment order dated June 14, 1969, assessed the total income at Rs. 1,68,987 for the assessment year 1947-48 in the name of the assessee as an individual, under Sec.23(3) of the 1922 Act. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee asserted that the amount of Rs. 1,27,000 relating to the amount encashed relating to the high denomination notes should have been assessed in the assessment year 1946-47 and not in the assessment year 1947-48. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the amount of Rs. 1,27,000 was business income of the assessee and it was rightly assessed in the assessment year 1947-48. The assessee appealed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the assessees appeal relating to the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, and the Excess Profits Act, 1940, and held that no business profits tax or excess profits tax was leviable against the amount of Rs. 1,27,000 which is not the business income and it should be treated as income from other sources. The Tribunal also held that it was rightly assessed in the assessment year 1947-48. This court, in the consolidated order dated May 14, 1985, held that the amount was rightly assessed in the assessment year 1947-48. 3. Now, the facts of the present case may be briefly stated. Originally, the assessment in this case was made under Sec.23(3) of the 1922 Act on June 14, 1949. This court, in the consolidated order dated May 14, 1985, held that the amount was rightly assessed in the assessment year 1947-48. 3. Now, the facts of the present case may be briefly stated. Originally, the assessment in this case was made under Sec.23(3) of the 1922 Act on June 14, 1949. This order was rectified in 1950 and the excess profits tax as well as the business profits tax was allowed as a deduction as provided under Sec.12(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, and Sec.10 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947. Later on, the Income-tax Officer found that the Tribunal, by its order dated November 30, 1970, decided that the income of Rs. 1,27,000 in the hands of the deceased assessee, Chatturam, was from undisclosed sources and not from business and so no excess profits tax and business profits tax was leviable on this income. As a consequence of this order of the Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer proceeded to rectify the earlier assessment as rectified by a further rectification under Sec.155(3) of the 1961 Act. By this rectification order, the deduction allowed in respect of excess profits tax and business profits tax was withdrawn. This order of the Income-tax Officer has been annexed and marked as annexure "A" forming part of the statement of the case. 4. When the matter went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he found that the assessee and his group had made disclosure of escaped income of Rs. 86,30,349 before the Central Board of Revenue and a settlement was made on that income under Sec.34(1B)of the 1922 Act and in that settlement order dated August 20, 1960, the value of the high denomination notes encashed by the assessee, Chatturam, was taken at Rs. 1,27,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that this amount had already been subjected to tax under the settlement order and the matter had become conclusive and final. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also referred to the order in the case of Shri Guru Prasad [1986] 158 ITR 278 and agreeing with that order, held that the rectification order passed by the Income-tax Officer was not correct in view of the settlement made. This order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been annexed and marked as annexure "B" forming part of the statement of the case. 5. This order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been annexed and marked as annexure "B" forming part of the statement of the case. 5. When the matter came in appeal before the Tribunal, both sides relied on the facts and arguments given in the case of Shri Guru Prasad which had been considered by the Tribunal in ITA No. 992 of 1972-73 dated January 24, 1974. No new facts were argued before the Tribunal and no new arguments were advanced. 6. The Tribunal finding the present case similar to the case of Shri Guru Prasad held for the detailed reason given in that case that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not be supported and had to be set aside and so the departmental appeal was allowed. This order of the Tribunal forms part of the statement of the case which has been marked as annexure "C". Thus, it is evident that full facts have not been given in the order of the Tribunal, annexure "C". However, a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Guru Prasad in ITA No. 992 of 1972-73 has been annexed and marked as annexure "D" forming part of the statement of the case. From this order as contained in annexure "D", it is evident that the Tribunal held that the order of assessment passed on December 30, 1949, had not been the result of any settlement made between the Department and the assessee and that when as a result of the order of the Tribunal, excess profits tax liability was modified and there was no liability for the tax, the original order deducting the excess profits tax liability could be rectified under Sec.35(6) of the 1922 Act corresponding to Sec.155(3) of the 1961 Act. The Tribunal also held in that case that it cannot be held that the amount of Rs. 2,98,000 was assessed in 1947-48 as a part of the settlement and merely because it was made a part of the total disclosure of Rs. 86,03,349 by the group of the assessee, it could not be held that a mistake in the order for the assessment year 1947-48 could not be rectified. 2,98,000 was assessed in 1947-48 as a part of the settlement and merely because it was made a part of the total disclosure of Rs. 86,03,349 by the group of the assessee, it could not be held that a mistake in the order for the assessment year 1947-48 could not be rectified. The Tribunal also held that Sec.34(1D) of the 1922 Act merely provides that any settlement under that section shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and the assessee could not reopen any matter which forms part of the settlement and that this does not preclude the Income-tax Officer from rectifying an order particularly when it was not subject to a settlement. The Tribunal also held that in equity, the assessee cannot be allowed a deduction in respect of liability which is non-existent now. The Tribunal also came to a finding in that case that the order of the Income-tax Officer has to be treated as an order under Section 35(6) of the 1922 Act and as no appeal was provided against an order under Sec.35, the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not competent and so the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has to be set aside. 7. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in Taxation Cases Nos. 44 of 1975 and 39 to 41 of 1976. Detailed reasons have been given in the aforesaid taxation cases, which were disposed of by a consolidated order dated May 14, 1985 (Guru Prasad V/s. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 278 (Pat)) along with Taxation Cases Nos. 17 of 1972 and 16 of 1972. The facts of this case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and the questions referred are the same as in the aforesaid taxation cases. For the detailed reasons mentioned in the aforesaid taxation cases, we have held that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no competent appeal lay before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the rectification order of the Income-tax Officer and that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the appeals and in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that Sec.34(1D) of the 1922 Act was not a bar to the Revenue in rectifying the assessment for the assessment year 1947-48 and for other years involved in those cases in the manner done by the Income-tax Officer. 8. 8. For the detailed reasons mentioned in the consolidated order dated May 14, 1985, in the aforesaid taxation cases ([1958] 158 ITR 278 (Pat)), I hold in this case also that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no competent appeal lay before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the rectification order of the Income-tax Officer and that the Tribunal was correct in entertaining the departmental appeal and in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that the Tribunal was also justified in holding that Section 34(1D) of the 1922 Act was not a bar to the Revenue in rectifying the assessment order for the assessment year 1947-48 in the manner done by the Income-tax Officer. All the three questions are accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs. Uday Sinha, J. 9 I agree.