Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) whereby it has remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for the assessment by applying Section 44-AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2. ) THE facts need to be stated are that the appellant, a registered firm, deals with the business of tendu leaves. For the assessment year 1991-92 it filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 5,92,280/- along with return trading account, profit and loss account and balance-sheet etc. During course of assessment proceedings it was contended by the assessee that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee had traded in the business of forest produce that is purchase and sale of Tendu leaves. The provision contained in Section 44-AC of the Act was referred to show that profit of 35% of total sales of Rs. 16,92,227/- being Rs. 5,92,280/-had been offered for taxation, though as per trading and profit and loss account net taxable profit came to Rs. 9,37,452/ -. The assessing officer after considering the submissions of the assessee adopted the taxable profit of Rs. 5,92,280/- as per provisions contained in Section 44-AC of the Act. However, he picked up income from other sources, namely, interest and bank commission and income from plying vehicles, i. e. , motorcycles and jeeps etc, totalling to Rs. 1,25,779/-and added the same to the income of Rs. 5,92,280/-which was accepted under Section 44-AC of the Act. Thus, total income came to Rs. 7,18,059/ -. ( 3. ) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging inclusion of interest amount on short deposit of idle money. It was putforth before the Appellate Authority that when the income was assessed under Section 44-AC for purchase and sale of tendu leaves but the interest received amounting to Rs. 1,12,335/- on short deposit of idle money no separate addition could have been made in the income declared under Section 44-AC of the Act. The C. I. T. (Appeals) deleted the aforesaid sum. ( 4. ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Revenue preferred I. T. A. No. 174/jab/96 before the Tribunal. Initially the appeal was heard on 1-2-1999 but subsequently was released. The C. I. T. (Appeals) deleted the aforesaid sum. ( 4. ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Revenue preferred I. T. A. No. 174/jab/96 before the Tribunal. Initially the appeal was heard on 1-2-1999 but subsequently was released. As an application was filed by the departmental authority the case was again taken up. In the said application a further ground was incorporated. On the basis of application filed by the department representative the appeal was refixed for hearing and was finally heard. ( 5. ) IT was contended before the Tribunal by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the appeal could not be reheard on the basis of an application filed by the Revenue. ( 6. ) ON behalf of the Revenue it was contended that there was some confusion on the date of hearing, i. e. , 1-2-1999, as number of contentions were raised in the memo of appeal. It was also pointed out that by the time the First Appellate Authority decided the appeal the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. A. Sanyasi Rao, 219 ITR 330, was not available and hence, an additional ground was raised. It was also putforth by the learned Counsel for the Revenue that the real income is much more than the income estimated under Section 44-AC of the Act and there was hardly any necessity of making any presumption when complete books of accounts, vouchers are maintained as well as trading account and profit and loss account were also enclosed with the return of income. ( 7. ) SUPPORTING the order of the Appellate Authority, learned Counsel for the assessee contended before the Tribunal that as the same was not the issue before the Appellate Authority it could not have been raised before the Tribunal as the Tribunal has no power for enhancement. The judgment rendered in the case of Sitaram Partia v. A. C. I. T. , 51 ITD 65, was pressed into service. It was emphasized that in this decision a circular issued by the CBDT was followed as it was treated to be binding on the department. The judgment rendered in the case of Sitaram Partia v. A. C. I. T. , 51 ITD 65, was pressed into service. It was emphasized that in this decision a circular issued by the CBDT was followed as it was treated to be binding on the department. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions raised before it and came to hold that confusion crept in as the assessing officer applied Section 44-AC of the Act and also picked up other income which according to it did not fall within the scope of the provision contained in the aforesaid provision. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of A. Sanyasi Rao (supra), has not come at the time the First Appellate Authority decided the case on 13-2-1996. Being of this view the Tribunal passed the following directions :- "we are also satisfied that after the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sanyasi Rao (supra), when the assessee has maintained complete books of accounts and he himself has stated that income earned is Rs. 9,37,452/- in that event the income is to be computed as per provisions contained in Sections 28 to 43-C of the I. T. Act. There is no provision in the I. T. Act whereby if a person actually maintains the books of account, prepares trading account and profit and loss account in that event income is to be computed as per provisions of Sections 28 to 43-C of the I. T. Act, 1961, because as per provisions contained in Section 43-AC one has to estimate the income. No estimation of income is required when figures of actual income are available which are supported by trading and profit and loss account as well as balance sheet. In this case, even without admitting additional ground, we are of the opinion that root cause of entire controversy before First Appellate Authority was because of application of Section 44-AC. We are satisfied that the AO committed an error in making the assessment, which is also evident from the judgment of Honble Court in the case of A. Sanyasi Rao (supra ). There is a considerable force in preliminary objection of learned Division Bench and in such circumstances we have power to remand the matter to AO for fresh assessment. We are satisfied that the AO committed an error in making the assessment, which is also evident from the judgment of Honble Court in the case of A. Sanyasi Rao (supra ). There is a considerable force in preliminary objection of learned Division Bench and in such circumstances we have power to remand the matter to AO for fresh assessment. In support of this view reliance can be placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, 231 ITR 507 (SC ). We, therefore, hereby set aside the order of CIT (A) and direct the AO to frame the assessment as per provisions contained in Sections 28 to 43-C of the I. T. Act in view of judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sanyasi Rao (supra ). " ( 8. ) AT the time of admission the following questions of law were framed :-" (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in remitting the matter as it could not have done so in the obtaining factual matrix and whether the Tribunal entered into the lis which was not raised before the First Appellate Authority ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing a ground to be raised by the Revenue after the matter was closed for judgment ?" ( 9. ) BEFORE this Court is was submitted by Mr. H. S. Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal could not have enhanced the tax and, therefore, it could not have remanded the matter. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Sitaram Partia (supra ). ( 10. ) MR. Rohit Arya, learned Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the circular issued under Section 119 of the Act does not apply to the present case as there is enough material on record for arriving at the conclusion in relation to income and expenditure and when the tax is determined it is obligatory on the part of party not to accept submissions of the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter to the assessing officer to proceed by applying the ratio laid down in the case of A Sanyasi Rao (supra ). Learned Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter to the assessing officer to proceed by applying the ratio laid down in the case of A Sanyasi Rao (supra ). It is also urged by him that the circular issued by the CBDT is not binding if it runs counter to the Supreme Court and High Court judgments and in that event the same is not to be followed. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has also submitted that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to remand the matter in certain cases. To bolster his submission he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Bhavna Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 231 ITR 507. ( 11. ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the order passed by the forums below. We have quoted the portion of the order. Main submission of Mr. Shrivastava is relatable to whether circular issued by the CBDT is totally binding on the Court. It is well settled in law that if the circular runs counter to the Apex Court and High Court judgments or the case involves a substantial question of law and if there is tremendous repurcussion then the Tribunal should have the Authority not to follow the circular. ( 12. ) AS far as submission of Mr. Shrivastava is concerned that as the Tribunal could not have computed the enhanced income directly it could not have done so indirectly by remanding the matter. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has done indirectly something which it could not have so done and further it could not have entertained the plea which was not raised before the First Appellate Authority. The present case has a different factual scenario. The judgment of the Apex Court came after the First Appellate Authority decided the matter. In the judgment of the Apex Court law was interpreted. When a judgment declares the law it is open to any Appellate Authority to take cognizance of it and remit the matter. Thus, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission. ( 13. ) THE next facet of submission of Mr. Shrivastava, is that the Tribunal should not have permitted the Revenue to raise a ground after the judgment was closed. The Tribunal has given ample reasons. Thus, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission. ( 13. ) THE next facet of submission of Mr. Shrivastava, is that the Tribunal should not have permitted the Revenue to raise a ground after the judgment was closed. The Tribunal has given ample reasons. However, when a particular question of law arises or comes to the notice of the Tribunal or is brought by any of the parties before it, it can not be said that the Tribunal can not entertain the same. True it is, the Tribunal can not entertain it without hearing the other side. In the present case, both the parties were heard at length. In view of this no substantial question of law arises on this score. ( 14. ) IN the result, we do not find any substantial question of law is involved in this case and accordingly the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. I. T. A. dismissed.