Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The assessee seeks reference of six questions to this court, after the assessee was unsuccessful in obtaining the reference of three of these questions, which he had proposed before the Tribunal. To the extent, the questions raised in these petitions go beyond what had been raised before the Tribunal, it is not open to the assessee to seek reference of such questions. The questions, which he had raised before the Tribunal are, "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to the language of section 14 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (No. 8 of 1976), and the communication of the Commissioner of Income-tax thereon the redone assessments as they stand modified are legally justified and supportable in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the seized documents being inchoate documents and pronotes whether they constituted the income of the assessee ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to the evidence on record the Tribunal was right in rejecting the thandal basis of these transactions of the assessee ?" The Tribunal, in the course of its order, while rejecting the petitioner's prayer for reference of those questions, noticed that the assessee's business-cum-residential premises were searched, by the Income-tax Department on March 8, 1993, and as a result, a number of pronotes were seized by the Department. It is only thereafter, that revised returns were filed by the assessee and the assessments were made for the year 1972-73 on the basis of the revised return. Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act having been issued to the assessee, revised returns were filed for the years 1965-66 to 1971-72 also, and those revised returns were considered and assessment after being reopened was done on October 31, 1975Appeals having been preferred against those assessments, the appellate authority had directed the Income-tax Officer to redo the assessments. It was the plea of the assessee that he had been carrying on business on thandal basis - where interest is collected in advance and the principal is collected in equal portions on each successive day thereafter. While the matter was before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee also filed a statement under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. While the matter was before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee also filed a statement under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. The Commissioner made an order thereon holding that the assessee's plea that he was doing the business on thandal basis would be accepted, only if he is able to adduce necessary evidence before the Income-tax Officer. The assessee examined six witnesses before the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer did not consider their evidence to be credible and rejected the same. He thereafter proceeded to make the assessment on the basis that the assessee did not carry on thandal business. On appeal, the appellate authority held that some part of the income was derived from thandal business and he reduced the quantum for which the assessee had been assessed. The Revenue as also the assessee went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected both sets of appeals and affirmed the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal noticed the nature of the Commissioner's communication, which had made the acceptance of the voluntary disclosure conditional upon the assessee proving that he had been carrying on thandal business, and that the income was derived therefrom. To the extent, the appellate authority had accepted that part of the income was on account of thandal business, the same had been excluded for the purpose of assessment. The Tribunal accepted the finding of the appellate authority that only a part of the income could be related to thandal business, and the income on which he had been assessed by the appellate authority was not traceable to the thandal business. That is a finding of fact. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that "the assessee had accepted that he had to explain the seized pronotes and that the source came from extra interest charged and not shown to the Department. That is a finding of fact. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that "the assessee had accepted that he had to explain the seized pronotes and that the source came from extra interest charged and not shown to the Department. It was also reiterated before the Tribunal that the assessee does not want to retract from the statements given to them earlier." The Tribunal further noticed the fact that the Income-tax Officer had accepted that in the case of six pronotes, there were only securities, and the other pronotes did represent the income, as the money unaccounted was the subject-matter of those pronotesHaving perused the order of the Tribunal and gone through the order of the Commissioner, we are satisfied that the assessee's claim that the return made by him under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme put an end to all his liabilities is wholly untenable, that the assessee had failed to prove that the entire income in respect of which, the assessee was assessed was derived from thandal business, and that the pronotes which were taken into account for the purpose of assessment were pronotes, which represented the unaccounted income of the assessee-company the amount of the extra interest charged, but not disclosed to the Department. We do not find any question meriting reference and the tax case petitions deserve to be dismissed. We must record our displeasure at the manner in which these petitions have been prosecuted by the assessee. The order of the Tribunal was passed more than 20 years ago in May, 1978. The assessee lodged his petitions in this court on December 5, 1978. However, the assessee did not comply with all the procedural requirements for almost 20 years and the petitions came to be numbered only on July 15, 1997. This is hardly the manner in which the applications for reference under the provisions of the Income-tax Act are required to be prosecuted. We heard counsel for the assessee on the merits of the matter, even though the assessee is no more, as the assessee's legal representatives had not been brought on record in spite of time having been granted and counsel directed to pursue the assessee's case. The petitions have abated and are also without merit.