AJAY TEWARI, J. - (1.)THE assessee has filed the present appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against referred to as 'the Tribunal') in CO. No. 9/Asr/2004 in Appeal No. 30/Asr/2004 for the asst. yr. 1995 -96, proposing following substantial questions of law : "(a) Whether the action on the part of respondent authorities to initiate the proceedings under s. 147 of the Act without considering the material facts that the deposit made in the saving accounts are from the sale of agricultural land and hence agriculture income, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? and the proof with regard to the identity of donor who is Canadian Citizen, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (c) Whether the action on the part of respondent authorities to reject the cross -objections of the assessee -appellant is legally sustainable in the eyes of law -
(2.)PROCEEDINGS under s. 147 of the Act were initiated against the appellant by issuance of a notice under s. 148 of the Act. Reassessment was ordered for the reason that the assessee has not produced any evidence with regard to the source of payment of Rs. 7,47,000 being invested in property. In response to notices under ss. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act appellant submitted that the deposits made in the savings account were received from the sale of agricultural land, agricultural income and gifts. The AO held that the gifts claimed were not genuine and were thus treated as income from undisclosed sources under s. 69 of the Act. additional evidence. The matter was carried up in appeal by the Revenue claiming that the CIT(A) had erred in admitting additional evidence in deleting the addition. In cross -objections the appellant attacked the reassessment proceedings. for reassessment were according to the provisions of law. However, it did not find favour with the acceptance of additional evidence by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to decide the appeal afresh after affording due opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional evidence.
(3.)WE do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and consequently hold that the proposed questions of law do not arise in the present appeal. Mr. Akshay Bhan, counsel for the appellant, however, argued that in view of the matter having been remanded back even the question regarding the validity of reassessment should have been left open. In our opinion the direction of the Tribunal to remand the matter back to decide the appeal afresh would not preclude a fresh decision on this aspect. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. No costs.