Judgment:
K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which has been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 55/Bang/1996 dt.21.2.2003 for the assessment year 1987-88.
2. The Appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:
1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no mistake in the order of the Appellate Commissioner was pointed out when it was specific case of the revenue that the Appellate Commissioner had failed to record a finding on the controversies which arose during the current assessment year as it was not identical to the facts prevailing in the earlier assessment year and consequently recorded a perverse finding.
2) Whether the Appellate Authorities failed to taken into consideration the controversy arising during the current assessment year regarding the claim of disallowance of loan amount by the assessing officer as the relevant parties had not proved the source and the disallowance of the exemption on agriculture income by the assessing officer as no particulars were furnished in this regard.
3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in failing to record a finding on the conclusion of the Appellate Commissioner that the purchase value of the property purchased by the assessee should be Rs. 22,000/- and not Rs. 90,000/- as held by the assessing officer by failing to take into consideration that Sri. Anthony has admitted in his cross examination that the land was sold for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.
3. After hearing, we notice that between the same parties for the previous year in respect of property purchased by the assessee from Justin John, a similar question has arisen and the facts m the said case and the facts involved in the present case are similar. In the aforesaid case, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to find out the actual investment on the property purchased by the assessee from Justin John, Similarly in this case, what was the sale consideration actually paid by the assessee to her vendor, whether it is Rs. 22,000/- or Rs. 90,000/-.
4. Similarly, in other connected matters between the same parties in order to find out the agricultural income of the assessee, we have remanded the matter to Assessing Officer.
5. Therefore, we are of the view, in order to consider these two points, we have to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to give a finding based on the documents produced by the assessee and if the assessee is willing to produce any further documents, she is at liberty to produce the same.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed without answering the questions of law and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer.