Tribunal remits assessment back to Assessing Officer, emphasizing consideration of additional evidence and fresh order within six months.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's obligation to reconsider the issue, consider all additional evidence, and pass a fresh assessment order within six months as directed by the High Court. The Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for compliance with the High Court's directive regarding the consideration of additional evidence. The decision did not address the concern raised by the assessee's counsel regarding the seized jewelry.

---

---

Issues:
1. Consideration of additional evidence by Assessing Officer post direction from High Court.
2. Compliance with High Court's directive to Assessing Officer.
3. Seized jewelry from the premises of the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to an order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.03.2013 concerning the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 up to 17.07.1996. The Tribunal had previously determined the taxable income at a lesser amount than assessed by the Assessing Officer. Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals before the High Court, which directed the Assessing Officer to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee and pass a fresh order. However, the Assessing Officer failed to consider the additional evidence, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not refer to any of the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the impugned assessment order, despite the High Court's clear directive. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer must consider all additional evidence and pass a speaking order in compliance with the High Court's directions. As the Assessing Officer failed to adhere to the High Court's directive, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and a fresh assessment order within six months.

3. The assessee's counsel raised concerns regarding seized jewelry, stating that despite the search in 1996, the Department had not completed proceedings and was unwilling to return the seized items. The counsel requested a direction for the return of the jewelry. However, the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the Assessing Officer's failure to consider additional evidence, leading to the remittance of the matter for a fresh assessment in accordance with the High Court's directive.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's obligation to reconsider the issue, consider all additional evidence, and pass a fresh assessment order within six months as directed by the High Court.

---