Remand for fresh factual verification upheld where seized records required re-examination and no substantial question of law arose.

Where seized diary entries, gate-pass records and related material required further factual verification, remand to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination was held legally sustainable. The Tribunal's direction was supported by the need to recheck the proprietorship connection, the affidavit relied on by the revisionist and the connected evidence, because the record did not conclusively eliminate the need for inquiry. As the remand order disclosed no legal infirmity and no substantial question of law arose, revisional interference was not warranted and the remand remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the seized diary, gate-pass records and connected material. (ii) Whether the impugned order gave rise to any question of law warranting interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the seized diary, gate-pass records and connected material.

Analysis: The seized diary contained references requiring further verification, and the proprietorship connection, the affidavit relied upon by the revisionist, and the railway gate-pass records were all matters that called for factual examination. The material on record did not conclusively rule out the need for inquiry. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence afresh.

Conclusion: The remand was justified and was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order gave rise to any question of law warranting interference in revision.

Analysis: The order of remand was founded on the need to examine relevant evidence and did not disclose any legal infirmity. No substantial question of law emerged from the Tribunal's order, and therefore revisional interference was not called for.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for interference in revision.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the Tribunal's direction for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material on record requires further factual verification and no substantial question of law arises, a remand for fresh assessment is legally sustainable in revision.

---