- (1.) By this application filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking this court to direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in holding that, after the remand, the scope of enquiry was limited and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong in holding that the expenses of Rs. 18,000 incurred on the marriage of Manju do not pertain to the assessment in question ?
(2.) Whether, on an interpretation of the definition of previous years given in Section 3, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the previous years for undisclosed income of the assessee, which does not find recorded in his books of account for the relevant financial year while the Income-tax Officer as well as the assessee has taken the previous year ending on Diwali 1973, and holding that the expenditure of Rs. 18,000 relating to the marriage of Manju pertains to the assessment year in question ?
(3.) Whether the Tribunal is justified in not considering the order of the Tribunal for the year 1975-76 in which the addition of Rs. 10,000 has been sustained towards expenditure incurred in the marriage while sustaining the addition in the year under consideration ?" 2. So far as the first two questions are concerned, it is clear from the order of the first appellate authority that the remand to the Income-tax Officer was limited only to one issue, namely, to determine what was the amount received by the assessee from his relatives, after considering such evidence as the appellant may place before it. In view of such limited remand, the Income-tax Officer and the appellate authority on appeal had no power to go into other questions or enlarge the scope of proceedings/ appeal. The first two questions cannot, therefore, be referred to this court for opinion. Indeed, they are concluded by a decision of this court reported in Abhai Ram Gopi Nath v. CIT [ 1971 ] 79 ITR 339. 3. So far as the third question is concerned, it does not really arise from the order of the Tribunal. These proceedings pertain to the assessment year 1974-75 and the question raised pertains to the assessment year 1975-76. The Tribunal rightly refused to go into that aspect.;