JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking directions to the Tribunal to send the statement of the case and refer the question of law as proposed. The proposed questions of law are reproduced below : "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1978-79 could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that when an appeal has been decided on a preliminary objection which has been answered in the negative by the superior court, even without a specific direction from the superior court to decide the other grounds of objection, will have to be decided by the Tribunal afresh ?" The facts lie in a narrow compass. The high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each amounting to Rs. 1 lakh were encashed by the assessee on January 18, 1978, on the ground that such notes ceased to be legal tender. The Income-tax Officer made the draft assessment order and proposed addition of this amount as the assessee failed to explain the source of the said amount and forwarded it to the then Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in his discretion available to him under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act directed the Income-tax Officer to delete this addition. Thus, assessment was made by the Assessing Officer excluding this amount. Later, the Commissioner of Income-tax examined the record of the case and the assessment order and concluded that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act set aside the assessment with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessment after an enquiry. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee filed an Appeal No. 1208/(Ind) of 1983 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. He, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act set aside the assessment with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessment after an enquiry. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee filed an Appeal No. 1208/(Ind) of 1983 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the matter and decided the case on the basis of preliminary objection of the assessee to the effect that the Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order passed in compliance with the directions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act. The appeals filed for the assessment year 1978-79 were allowed by order dated November 16, 1989. The Department then filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for reference of the questions as noted above. The application was rejected. The Department has, therefore, filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. 2. We have heard Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Samvatsar appeared on the notice issued against the NA but served on one of his legal representatives. Admittedly, the NA had died during the pendency of the Departmental proceedings. Thus, reference application has been filed against a dead person. 3. Placing reliance on CIT v. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust [1987] 166 ITR 580 (MP); and CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash and Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP), the Tribunal held that the cash balances of the assessee were sufficient to cover the value of such high denomination notes and it was not necessary for the assessee to prove as to from whom those high denomination notes were received. 4. The apex court in Bai Velbai v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 130 held that the crux of the matter is to explain or establish the source of the income or the receipt of money and not the source of receipt of the high denomination currency notes. The fact remains that the cash balance of the assessee was sufficient to cover the value of high denomination notes. This was a finding of fact which is not perverse and as such it did not give rise to any question of law. In view of this, the Tribunal rightly rejected the application for reference. 5. The fact remains that the cash balance of the assessee was sufficient to cover the value of high denomination notes. This was a finding of fact which is not perverse and as such it did not give rise to any question of law. In view of this, the Tribunal rightly rejected the application for reference. 5. In the result, this application fails on two grounds : (i) it is filed against dead person and no steps were taken to seek substitution of the legal representatives despite adjournments ; and (ii) the case does not involve any question of law. 6. Reference application is accordingly rejected but without any order as to costs.