Judgment :- RAMAKRISHNAN J. This tax case petition was filed under section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The petitioner made a gift of a certain extent of land to his daughter and grandchildren. The question arose before the gift-tax authorities about estimating the value of the gift, and for that purpose, the assessee had estimated the value at Rs. 900 per acre. But the Gift-tax Officer, Nagapattinam, considered this valuation to be extremely low and on the basis of local enquiries adopted the value of Rs. 1, 200 per acre. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority accepted the assessee's valuation of Rs. 900 per acre. Against this last-mentioned decision, the department took the matter on further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. This Tribunal, by an order which it described as a remand order, passed on 30th of October, 1964, referred to a cention put forward before it, that the sale deed on the basis of which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had fixed the value of the land at Rs. 900 per acre, was really a will and that it could not be relied upon for supporting the valuation. The Tribunal observed that the matter required further investigation, because the attack thus made upon the nature of the document would affect the very basis of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision fixing the value. It therefore called for a fresh finding from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after taking fresh evidence on question of the valuation of the land and granted two months' time from the date of the receipt of the order for the purpose of submitting a fresh finding on the basis of the additional evidence taken A report was accordingly sent by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that the rate of Rs. 1, 200 per acre adopted by the Gift-tax Officer in the first instance was to be preferred in the light of the date adduced before the authorities. The Tribunal took this report into consideration, heard the parties and passed the order now challenged holding that the proper valuation for the land would be Rs. 1, 200 per acre, and that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner fixing the value at Rs. The Tribunal took this report into consideration, heard the parties and passed the order now challenged holding that the proper valuation for the land would be Rs. 1, 200 per acre, and that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner fixing the value at Rs. 900 was not correct and required to be set asideThe learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner before us, urged that the passing of a remand order of the kind mentioned above in this case was beyond the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. For this purpose, he referred to rule 28 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which states that where the Tribunal is of the opinion that the case should be remanded, it may remand it to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer with such directions as the Tribunal may think fit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this rule would imply that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal can remand a matter for fresh disposal only after setting aside the impugned decision, if it finds that relevant evidence had not been considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In other words, if the learned counsel's argument is to be accepted, the scope of the power of the Appellate Tribunal defined in section 23(5) of the Gift-tax Act, 1938, which says that the Appellate Tribunal, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, may pass " such orders thereon as it think fit ", should be restricted. to the power of an outright remand after setting aside the decision and should not include the power to make an in intermediate direction for the taking of additional evidence or for the giving of a fresh finding on the taking of such evidence, by the subordinate authorities, in order to enable the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal before it on receipt of such finding or the receipt of a report after the taking of evidence. It appears to us that this view of the scope of the appellate Tribunal's powers under section 23(5) places an unduly narrow construction upon it. The term " such orders as it think fit " appears to us to be sufficiently wide, to include a power to direct the lower authorities to collect fresh evidence and submit findings on such evidence, if necessary, pending the disposal of the main appeal. The term " such orders as it think fit " appears to us to be sufficiently wide, to include a power to direct the lower authorities to collect fresh evidence and submit findings on such evidence, if necessary, pending the disposal of the main appeal. A reference to rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules shows that it is within the power of the Tribunal to take additional evidence before it if it considers it to be necessary and under rule 30, it can also direct the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to receive evidence of such documents or of such witnesses as the Tribunal may direct. In the present case, though the order of the Tribunal purports to be a remand order, a perusal of its terms shows that it is in essence an interim order directing the lower authorities to take evidence on a specified point, and submit a finding on that point ; it is not a final disposal of the appeal by a remand. In our opinion, an interim order of this k ind which directs the lower authorities to take fresh evidence and submit a finding to the Tribunal pending the disposal of an appeal before the Tribunal will be entirely within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal, at it will fall within the scope of the power granted under section 23(5) of the Act, for the disposal of the appeal before itLearned counsel for the petitioner referred us to a decision of a Bench of this court in Ramaswami Iyengar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. But the decision, we find after a reference to it, does not at all deal with the point now raised before us In conclusion, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there were no data at all before the Appellate Tribunal to determine the valuation of the land at Rs. 1, 200 per acre. A reference to the order in question shows that the Tribunal has considered the effect of several documents relating to sale of properties in the neighbourhood for fixing the value of the land at Rs. 1, 200 per acre and has rejected the evidence afforded by the petitioner in support of his valuation, because it has not been properly vouched by the production of the necessary documents. 1, 200 per acre and has rejected the evidence afforded by the petitioner in support of his valuation, because it has not been properly vouched by the production of the necessary documents. This is a decision by the Tribunal entirely on a question of fact based on the appreciation of evidence, and it cannot be disturbed by us within the scope of a reference We therefore see no ground to call upon the Tribunal to submit any question for our determination and dismiss the petition. The petitioner will pay the respondent's costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150.