U.L. Bhat, C.J. — This reference has been made by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue under section 256 (1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The question, which is in two parts, reads as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding that the Assessee's source of money invested in the purchase of 2013 bags of potatoes was Rs.60,000/- disclosed by the assessee under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975 and whether the said decision of the Tribunal is against the provisions of section 9 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976". 2. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and the assessee is an unregistered firm. The original order of assessment was passed on 23.3.74, a copy of which is seen in the paper book. By this order, ITO directed a sum of Rs. 54.000/- to be added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income representing purchase of 2013 bags of potatoes during the previous year and an addition of Rs. 64.000/- being concealed trading profit during the year. The assessee filed an appeal before the CA against the above additions as well as other findings. The order was set aside by the CA on 31.8.74. Thereafter, ITO made a fresh assessment order on 28.2.75 adding a sum of Rs. 54.000/- (as earlier) and adding a sum of Rs.92,000/- instead of originally added sum of Rs. 64,000/-. In an appeal filed by the assessee, CA vide order dated 10.11.75 deleted the addition of Rs.54,000/- but retained the addition of Rs.92,000/-. Assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal which remanded the matter to the file of the CA directing him to pass fresh order with specific reference to the observations made in that judgment. CA called a report from the Income-tax Officer and passed a fresh order on 19.11.83. The addition of Rs. 54.000/- made by the ITO was deleted and the addition of Rs. 92.000/- was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objection. The Tribunal rejected the contention of revenue regarding addition of Rs 54.000/-but partly allowed the appeal in respect of another matter and dismissed the cross-objection. Hence, this reference. 3. 54.000/- made by the ITO was deleted and the addition of Rs. 92.000/- was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objection. The Tribunal rejected the contention of revenue regarding addition of Rs 54.000/-but partly allowed the appeal in respect of another matter and dismissed the cross-objection. Hence, this reference. 3. Since the question referred to is in two parts, we will consider each part separately. 4. First part of the question : This relates to suppression by the assessee in his return of purchase of 2013 bags of potatoes which was found by the ITO and not disputed before us. The purchase price was Rs. 54.000/-. ITO, therefore, found that this amount was undisclosed and added the same to the income of the assessee. Before the CA passed the order dated 10.11.75, the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 came into force with effect from 8.10.75. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the corresponding Act of 1976 (for short 'the Disclosure Act') which also came into force on 8.10.75. Section 3 of the Disclosure Act requires disclosure to be made on or before 31st December, 1975. The assessee made a disclosure paying the tax stipulated under section 8(1) (ii) of the Disclosure Act and making the investment as contemplated under section 8 (1) (iii) of the Disclosure Act on 17.12.75 for the assessment year 1970-71. The amount of income so disclosed was Rs. 60.000/-. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued a certificate as contemplated in section 8 (2) of the Act. The certificate is dated 27.2.79. 5. During the hearing of the appeal before the CA which ended in judgment dated 19.11.83, the assessee argued that sum of Rs. 54,000/- added by the ITO for the assessment year 1971-72 came out of the sum of Rs. 60.000/- voluntarily disclosed as income by him for the assessment year 1970-71 and therefore sum of Rs. 54,000/- cannot be regarded as undisclosed income after the above declaration. The Appellate Authority and the Appel­late Tribunal accepted this contention. Paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority referred to the certificate issued by the Commissioner, CIT under section 8 (2) of the Act and drew the inference that since the assessee had disclosed an income of Rs. 60.000/- for the assessment year 1970-71 the sum of Rs. The Appellate Authority and the Appel­late Tribunal accepted this contention. Paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority referred to the certificate issued by the Commissioner, CIT under section 8 (2) of the Act and drew the inference that since the assessee had disclosed an income of Rs. 60.000/- for the assessment year 1970-71 the sum of Rs. 54.000/- was out of disclosed income of Rs.60,000/-. On this reasoning, addition made by the ITO was deleted. The Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 4 of the judgment also referred to certificate dated 27.2.79 and held that it was reasonable to accept the assessee's plea that the above sum of Rs.54,002/- was out of disclosure of Rs. 60.000/-. The above reasoning and findings are challenged by the Revenue. 6. It is contended by the assessee that the above finding recorded by the Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in the reference. If this finding is based on some evidence, the Court of reference may not re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion. The Court will also not examine sufficiency of evidence. If the finding is based on no evidence, the question will not be regarded as a question of fact but one of law. There is no dispute that the only evidence produced by the assessee before the Appellate Authority before whom this contention was raised first was certificate dated 27.2.79 issued by the CIT under section 8 (2) of the Disclosure Act stating that the assessee has volun­tarily disclosed the income of Rs.60,000/- for the assessment year 1970-71, paid Rs.22,250/- as income-tax tax thereon and invested Rs.3,000/- in securities as required under the law. The question is whether this certificate can be regarded as evidence showing that a sum of Rs.54,000/- was provided out of disclosed income of Rs.60,000/-. 7. A similar state of affairs arose for consideration before the High Court of Andbra Pradesh in Radio Instruments Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 166 ITR 718. In that case, the assessee filed return showing loss in the previous year 1972-73. 7. A similar state of affairs arose for consideration before the High Court of Andbra Pradesh in Radio Instruments Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 166 ITR 718. In that case, the assessee filed return showing loss in the previous year 1972-73. During the scrutiny of the accounts, the Income tax authorities noticed that assessee had an account in its books one for Standard Radio Corporation, Delhi, which continued a number of tran­sactions and at the end of the accounting year, the account showed a credit balance of about Rs. 11/2 lakhs. The assessee explained that the Delhi Branch of the assessee had sold certain stocks on suspense account and from out of sale proceeds of such books made payments to the aforesaid Standard Radio Corporation without recording the same in books of account. In the books of account of the assessee there was a suspense account to which credits were made whenever the assessee fell short of cash. The sum total of the credit appearing in the suspense account was Rs. 1,02,000. The assessee tried to connect the credits in the suspense account with sale proceeds of goods by Delhi Branch. During the process of the scrutiny the assessee made disclosure of Rs. 7,000/- for the assessment year 1973-74 and Rs.15,000/- for the assessment year 1974-75 under Disclosure Ordinance of 1975. It was contended before the High Court that the amount disclosed represented the difference between the sale proceeds of the goods sold at Delhi Branch less the corresponding value of the stocks. That contention was rejected by the Authorities and the Tribunal. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held : "We are not satisfied that the connecting link is established by the assessee between the sums periodically credited in the suspense account and the alleged unaccounted sales. No endeavor has been made, as already pointed out above, to connect the credits appearing in the suspense account with the sale proceeds of goods sold at Delhi or any other place. Except the oral assertion of the assessee that the sum of Rs. 1,02,000 credited to the suspense account in periodical installments represented the unaccounted sales, there is absolutely no evidence connecting the same, ...It is, therefore, necessary that the assessee should establish the nexus between the voluntary disclosure and the assessment proceedings before the tax authorities. Except the oral assertion of the assessee that the sum of Rs. 1,02,000 credited to the suspense account in periodical installments represented the unaccounted sales, there is absolutely no evidence connecting the same, ...It is, therefore, necessary that the assessee should establish the nexus between the voluntary disclosure and the assessment proceedings before the tax authorities. Unless this burden is discharged, it cannot be said that the mere filing of voluntary disclosure automatically absolved the assessee from discharging the obligation that is otherwise cast on him to point out by some evidence the nexus between the voluntary disclosure and the matter under enquiry before the assessing authorities. Admittedly, this has not been done in the present case." The question was answered against the assessee. The assessee filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was, however, dismi­ssed. (1969 ITR (St) 85). 8. It was necessary for the assessee to connect the disclosed income of Rs.60.000/- for the assessment year 1971-72 with the sum of Rs.54.000/-being concealed transaction in the assessment year 1971-72. The connecting link is absent. Before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal assessee failed to place any evidence or material to establish the link. The judgments of the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal show that finding in favour of the assessee was arrived at merely on the basis of certificate issued under section 8 (2) of the Disclosure Act and without any further evidence of the connecting link. The finding, therefore, is based no evidence. We, therefore, hold that the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal were not justified in holding that the investment of Rs.54,000/- representing the price of 2013 bags of potato was from the amount disclosed under the Disclosure Act. The first part of the question is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 9. The second part of the question is whether the decision of the Tribunal is against section 9 of the Disclosure Act. Learned counsel for the assessee clarified that the assessee did not put forward any claim for relief under section 8 of the Disclosure Act and therefore the bar under section 9 of the Act is not attracted. 9. The second part of the question is whether the decision of the Tribunal is against section 9 of the Disclosure Act. Learned counsel for the assessee clarified that the assessee did not put forward any claim for relief under section 8 of the Disclosure Act and therefore the bar under section 9 of the Act is not attracted. In view of this submission and in view of our answer in regard to the first part of the question, we hold that the second part of the question does not arise for consideration. A copy of the judgment under signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati. There is no order as to costs.