In his assessment for the above year the Income-tax Officer Howrah while remarking that the source of income of the assessee during the accounting year was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the -details and vouchers of the speculative transactions made during the accounting year nor was there any evidence regarding the interest received by her from different parlles on her investments. Notwithstanding these defects he did not investigate into the various sources but assessed the appellant on a total income oi Rs. 9,037/-. Thereafter on 7•th June 1963 the Commi.;sioner by a notice under s. 33-B of.the Act required the assessee to show cause on or before June 25, 1963 why appropriate orders should not be passed under that section in respect of the. assessment year 1960-61 as the enquiries revealed that the assessee neither resided nor carried on any business from the address given in the return, that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in accepting the initial capital, the sale of ornaments, the income from business, the investments etc. without any· enquiry or evidence whatsoever and that the order of assessment wt$ erroneous and prejudicial to the intere$ts of revenue. In response to the aforesaid notice, '.he assessee showed cause on June 24, 1963 and after considering the objections of the assessee, the Commissioner passed an order cancelling the assessment for 1960-61 and directing the. Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment according to law after making enquiries wi·th regard to the jurisdiction and the business carried on by the assessee, the possession oi initial capital, acquisition and sale of ornaments, purchase of plot of land and· resources and the money invested in tl:e name of 1he assessee. In his order the Commissioner held that the assessments m'ade by the. Income-tax Officer were made in post haste without making any enquiry or imvestilrntion into the antecedents of the assessee. He further held that on enquiry i1 had bjeen ascertained that the Income-true Officer 'J' Ward, District 1(1) Howrah had no jurisdiction over the assessee, the assessments made by them were ab initio void inasmuch as the departmental enquiries revealed that the assessee never resided nor carried on any business either at premises 5 I A Bysack Street, Calcutta or at No. 1 Gunsala Road, Lillooah, Howrah. Jn fact the assessee had been living with her husband ever since her marriage in 1946 a1 Raniganj and for that reason he was of opinion that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in accepting the claim of initial capital oi Rs. 13,500/- without any evidence placed on record nor was he justified in accepting that the assessee
