Remand for cross-examination is valid where assessment relied on third-party records and fair hearing was denied.

A remand in assessment is proper where it is needed to cure a procedural irregularity or to secure a fair opportunity of confrontation and cross-examination; it is not intended to fill evidentiary gaps or permit a de novo inquiry. Here, the assessment depended on entries in a third party's books, the assessee sought cross-examination, and the officer failed to take further coercive steps after the witness did not appear. The appellate authority was therefore justified in setting aside the assessment for fresh inquiry, and the Tribunal acted legally in upholding that remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in remanding the assessment for allowing confrontation of the original document and cross-examination of the third party, and whether the Tribunal committed any illegality in upholding that remand.

Analysis: The appellate authority had power under section 9(3)(a)(iii) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh inquiry. The power of remand is not confined by rigid rules and must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Remand is not meant for a de novo trial or for filling up lacunae in the case, but it is permissible where the assessee has been denied a fair opportunity, or where the assessment suffered from procedural irregularity or illegality. On the facts, the assessment relied on entries in a third party's books, the assessee sought cross-examination, the officer had summoned the concerned person but took no further coercive steps when he did not appear, and the remand was directed to remove that irregularity and afford confrontation and cross-examination.

Conclusion: The remand was justified and the Tribunal did not act illegally in sustaining it.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand is proper where it is needed to cure a procedural irregularity or to afford a denied opportunity of confrontation or cross-examination, but it is not justified merely to fill gaps in evidence or to permit a de novo assessment.

---