SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The Revenue questions the propriety of the Appellate Tribunal reversing an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention of the Revenue is that since the order under Section 263 of the Act required a fresh assessment to be made and there were sufficient grounds which were indicated in the relevant order, the tribunal ought not to have interfered therewith.
(2.) The Revenue refers to the alleged loss of more than 72 kg gold valued in excess of Rs. 10 crore in course of a single financial year and which had been permitted as deduction by the assessing officer. The Revenue points to the several other anomalies, including the transactions that the assessee indulged in with its sister concerns, to assert that, at the very least, a fresh look into the business transactions and income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year was called for.
(3.) The order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is not the usual order of remand that one gets used to in this jurisdiction. There are specific directions in the order requiring the assessing officer to add particular amounts to the income and make an assessment of the tax payable thereunder. In other words, despite the Commissioner providing for a fresh assessment to be done, the Commissioner also undertook the exercise to substantially complete the assessment and required the details to be worked out by the assessing officer.;