JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant wants this court to answer two questions suggested in paragraph 3 of the application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These questions are as under : "1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order had merged with the appellate order and, therefore, the Commissioner could not invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, when the Assessing Officer had not at all considered the amount of Rs. 1,75,000 and the said point was also not agitated by the assessee before the appellate authority ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 whereby he has directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment ?" 2. The relevant facts are that in search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act at the assessee's residence and business premises cash amount of Rs. 2,08,606 was detected, out of which Rs. 2 lakhs were seized. At the time of search, the assessee had stated that out of that amount a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 was given to him by his brother, Vedprakash, and the rest belonged to his wife and mother. During the proceedings under section 132(5), the assessee contended that the said amount was cash of the International Exim Corporation brought by Shri Premchand who looked after cash of that firm and the rest of the amount of Rs. 15,000 and Rs.19,000 was of his wife and mother, respectively. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on March 31, 1983, adding Rs. 34,000 being the amounts that belonged to the wife and the mother of the assessee, in his total income. The Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 263 set aside that assessment order on January 15, 1985, and directed the Income-tax Officer to do the assessment afresh after making necessary enquiries. 3. The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal by its order dated February 14, 1994, holding that the Income-tax Officer had concluded in the assessment order under section 143(3) that a sum of Rs. 3. The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal by its order dated February 14, 1994, holding that the Income-tax Officer had concluded in the assessment order under section 143(3) that a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 had been satisfactorily explained by the assessee and that the Income-tax Officer had made deep enquiries into the matter, set aside the order of the Commissioner which was made under section 263. 4. It, however, appears that after the direction was given under section 263 by the Commissioner to the Income-tax Officer to proceed afresh the Income-tax Officer had proceeded with the matter afresh since there was no stay granted of that order of the Commissioner. The de novo assessment order was made against the assessee, but in the appeal filed by the assessee against that order, the Commissioner (Appeals), by his order dated December 28, 1990, partly allowing the appeal, came to the conclusion that the source of cash of Rs. 1,75,000 had been satisfactorily explained by the assessee and, therefore, it was not fair and reasonable to treat the same as unexplained income. The appellate authority, therefore, deleted the addition of Rs. 1,75,000 from the income of the assessee. It is stated on behalf of the Revenue that the Revenue has not challenged the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which has been made in favour of the assessee after the matter was remanded by the Commissioner of Income-tax by an order under section 263. In this view of the matter, any exercise that may be undertaken for deciding the question as to whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263 or not would be an exercise in futility and purely an academic exercise which we do not propose to undertake. This application is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.