Rule 46A evidence and completed remand verification barred further remand for unexplained investment addition.

Additional evidence filed under Rule 46A to explain the source of investment in a house property was accepted in remand proceedings, and the Assessing Officer reported that the source had been duly explained. In that situation, the appellate authority should have decided the addition on merits rather than remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The later amendment permitting remand in matters arising from assessments under section 144 did not justify a remand where factual verification had already been completed and no further enquiry was shown to be necessary. The remand was therefore unjustified, and the addition for unexplained investment was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer despite the remand report stating that the assessee had explained the source of investment in the house property.

Analysis: The assessee had filed additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 to substantiate the source of investment. The Assessing Officer, after examining the material in remand proceedings, reported that the source of investment was duly explained. In these circumstances, the appellate authority ought to have adjudicated the addition on merits instead of sending the matter back for fresh consideration. The amendment enabling remand in cases arising from assessments under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not justify remand where the factual verification had already been completed and no further enquiry was shown to be necessary.

Conclusion: The remand order was held to be unjustified. The addition for unexplained investment was deleted and the assessee succeeded.

---