JUDGMENT Om Prakash J. : Raising the following identical questions in all these applications, filed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, relating to asst. yr. 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the CIT, Agra, has prayed that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer these questions 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 the provisions of s. 263 are not applicable and in cancelling the order of the CIT passed under s. 263 ? 2. Whether, the Tribunals decision that mere failure on the part of the ITO to make enquiries and investigation regarding the assessees versions and his acceptance of whatever has been said by the assessee in the return and the papers accompanying it without any enquiry regarding sources of income and its ownership is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the ITOs order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and that something more should be shown indicating loss of revenue and if this is not done, the order of the CIT could be said to be suffering from legal infirmity ? 3. Whether, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the cases of J.P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1978) 111 ITR 326 , and that of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. R. K. Metal Works (1978) 112 ITR 445, have been correctly applied in the facts and circumstances of this case ? 4. Whether, the Honble Tribunal is legally justified in rejecting the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts quoted extensively in the Annexure A to the CITs order under s. 263 and whether its interpretation of the ration decidendi in these cases is correct ? 5. Whether, the fact, that in circumstances similar to this case, the Honble Tribunal in the two cases mentioned in the statements of facts, has itself found the Commissioners order under s. 263 to be legally correct is in itself sufficient to show that the questions of law do arise from the Tribunals order ?" 2. The assessee is a family trust. It filed returns for the three years in question showing income of varying amounts. The assessee trust was assessed for the asst. yr. The assessee is a family trust. It filed returns for the three years in question showing income of varying amounts. The assessee trust was assessed for the asst. yr. 1980-81 also and then the ITO took the view that the income of the assessee trust, being a specific trust, is exempt. He repeated the same view for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1983-84. Whereas, the CIT did not feel aggrieved by the order relating to the asst yr. 1980-81, he issued notices under s. 263 of the Act to the assessee and passed the impugned order stating in paragraph 12 that the assessment orders for all the three years had been made in undue haste and without proper enquiry. 3. The assessee challenged the combined order of the Commissioner before the Appellate Tribunal. The latter reversed the order of the Commissioner holding that the commissioner failed to show that the orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4. Involving similar facts and submissions, the Revenue filed applications under s. 256(2) of the Act in the case of M/s. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, Agra, being Income Tax Applications Nos. 101 and 102 of 1987 since reported as (1988) 67 CTR (All) 206. 5. Having heard ld. Counsel for the parties at some length, we took the view in the case of M/s. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, Agra that the Appellate Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that necessary books of accounts had been produced by the assessee before the ITO and he having seen them and having discussed the case with the representative of the assessee, passed the assessment orders. Precisely the same finding of fact has been recorded in the instant case by the Appellate Tribunal. 6. By the token of the order of date in the case of M/s. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, Agra (supra) we hold that no question of law arises from the combined order of the Appellate Tribunal passed in the instant cases. All the applications are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.