- (1.) THE assessee has approached this Court by filing the present appeal against the order passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 482/Asr/2001 for the asst. yr. 1998 -99, raising the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the instructions issued by the CBDT Annex. A -1 are binding on the IT authorities ? (ii) If the answer to the question No. 1 is in the affirmative whether the taking up the case for scrutiny and notice issued thereafter and the impugned orders are void ab initio in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (iii) Whether the impugned orders of the IT authorities suffer from perversity in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in reversing the deletion of Rs. 4,38,000 as made by the CIT(A) and the order of the Tribunal in remanding the case in the facts and circumstances of the case is legally sustainable ? (v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the deposits made by the partners on the first day of the accounting period could be treated as the income of the firm from unexplained sources ? (vi) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and more so when IT authorities have applied the net profit rate of 8 per cent, as the assessee -firm could not produce the account books, the account books can be relied for making the addition of Rs. 4,38,000 being the capital contribution of the partners -
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, from the fact concurrently found by the authorities below, it is evident that show -cause notice under s. 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the the assessee to plead that in terms thereof, the case of the assessee could not be taken for scrutiny, were though issued authorities below rejected the plea of the assessee holding that since the statutory process had already been initiated by issue of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act, the instructions coming later to the notice of the AO, the same cannot be left mid -way. In any case the assessee had the opportunity to defend his case on merits before the authority concerned. We concur with the findings recorded by the authorities below and do not find this to be substantial question of law.
(3.) AS far as the other issues raised by the appellant is concerned, from a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the matter has been remitted back to the AO for considering the addition of Rs. 4,38,000 on account of capital employed by the partners, which were added to the income of the firm in terms of s. 69 of the Act, to be dealt with in accordance with law. Accordingly, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain the appeal at this stage on these issues, the same having been remitted to the AO for redetermination in accordance with law as the assessee would have further opportunity of appeal, etc. against the order passed by the AO in remand proceedings. Accordingly, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed.;