PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) THE following questions of law are involved in this appeal : (i) Whether the Revenue could have tax the same amount in the hands of the firm as well as in the hands of the partners. (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed error of law in allowing the appeal of the Revenue with respect to deletion or addition of Rs.23,74,842/ which was added in the income of the assessee in view of the report submitted by the Assessing Officer upon requisitioning by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal when according to the Revenue, the Assessing Officer did not comply with the direction of the C.I.T. (Appeals) and did not submit the report of the enquiry in terms of the letter dated 02.04.2009.
(2.) SO far as first issue is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the same income has now been assessed in the hands of the partners of the firm who are Shri Jawahar Lal Vig, Shri Harish Kumar Vig and Shri Om Prakash Jaggi and at the same time by the impugned order, the same amount which has been assessed in the hands of the assessee firm. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the copies of the orders passed in the assessment cases of the partners. In view of the above reasons the legal question arises that, whether the amount can be taxed in two different hands, therefore, the appeals succeed on this point and the matter is required to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for finding out about the fact of the assessment of partners as the appellant has placed on the record only assessment order made by the Assessing Officer and whether that order attained the finality or not is not known, therefore, the issue no.1 is decided accordingly and the order in relation to the allowing the appeal of the revenue for taxing the amount in question in the hands of the firm is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer. So far as deletion of addition of Rs.23,74,842/ by the C.I.T. (Appeal) is concerned, the Revenue's own case before the Tribunal was that C.I.T. (Appeal) erred in deleting the said addition made by the Assessing Officer and it was the clear case of revenue itself that Assessing Officer in its assessment report send by letter dated 02.04.2009, at nowhere stated that he had made enquiries as directed by the C.I.T. (Appeals), and therefore, the matter should have been remanded to the Assessing Officer to complete the enquiry.
(3.) WE are of the considered opinion that Revenue was right in seeking remand in view of the fact that during the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee submitted revised return and the statement of the account audited by the Chartered Accountant and the Tribunal though observed that earlier also audited accounts were submitted and both the accounts are running altogether in contrast then in that situation, it was a fit case for remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for recording its finding of fact with respect to the pleas of the parties. Therefore, question no.2 is also answered in favour of the assessee appellant and the matter is required to be remanded on this count also.;