ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Following questions are raised in the appeal.
“1. Whether the Income Tax Authorities were right in computing the allegedly undisclosed investment of the assessee on the basis of the purported fair market value of the property in question ?
2. Whether the purported undisclosed income found by the Income Tax Authorities was founded upon ‘sufficient material’ in the hands of the department and the revenue had discharge the requisite burden become coming to a finding of undisclosed income ?
3. Whether where the directors of a quasi-company, i.e., private limited company are absolved all liability under section 158BC of the Act of 1961, the company can be burdened with liability in the same transaction under section 158BD of the Act of 1961 ?
4. Whether the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding addition of “on money” paid in a transaction but remanding the matter for a bearing is bad for contrary and futility ?
5. Whether the invalidity of a notice under section 158BD of the Act of 1961 is curable by a subsequent correction ?
6. Whether a body corporate only a juristic personality can have an income or undisclosed income without commencement of business ?”
3. At the out-set Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that basic issue is whether assessee has paid Rs. 34 lakhs as on money’ or not or whether he has invested Rs. 34 lakhs in addition to what has disclosed. He draws our attention at page 8, where the Tribunal on the one hand states that finding in respect of Rs. 34 lakhs paid as ‘on money’ is not perverse and on the other hand, the matter has been remitted back to the assessing officer to give opportunity to the assessee to explain whether he has paid Rs. 34 lakhs as on money’ in the transactions and decide the same issue afresh.
4. In our view, the Tribunal has committed mistake as on the one hand Tribunal states that finding regarding payment of Rs. 34 lakhs as ‘on money’ is not perverse and on the other hand, the Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the assessing officer to give opportunity, to the assessee to explain whether the on money of Rs. 34 lakhs has been paid. Once the matter has been remitted back to the assessing officer to decide the issue afresh regarding payment of ‘on money’, there is no justification of confirming the finding of assessing officer regarding payment of ‘on money’ of Rs. 34 lakhs.
5. Before we go into the other issues, we would like to have afresh finding on the issue whether assessee has paid Rs. 34 lakhs as ‘on money’. Let there be a finding from assessing officer in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal.
6. However, we made it clear that while deciding the issue afresh regarding addition of Rs. 34 lakhs, the assessing officer should not be influenced by any observation of the Tribunal or Commissioner in this regard.
7. The other issues in the appeal will be considered, if necessary, after receipt of the fresh finding from the assessing officer on the issue whether assessee has paid ‘on money’ of Rs. 34 lakhs or not.
8. The assessing officer is directed to give a fresh finding, on ‘on money’, within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.