Judgment :- The premises of the petitioner was raided by the income tax authorities. Thereupon, a statement by Sri. John Paulose Vettath, who is stated to be the uncle of the petitioner, was recorded. The return was also filed by the petitioner. The assessment was completed under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act for the block period 1.4.1995 to 4.10.2001, such proceedings completed on 31.10.2003. By the impugned Ext.P3, the Commissioner of income tax, invoking Section 263 of the Act, set aside the said assessment order with direction to the assessing officer to examine the factual position with regard to the credibility and genuineness of the source of funds through the alleged gift. The assessing authority was thereby directed to pas appropriate orders in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner contends that the assessment order, which was finalized on 31.10.2003 was appealed against by him and that the said assessment order had merged in the appellate order and that there is no ground to doubt the veracity of the gift. According to him, no enquiry was made by obtaining the statement of the maker of the gift while the petitioner had provided the entire materials to substantiate that the money had drawn in through various sources and that the same were gifts. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner urged that going by the yardstick laid by the apex court and the different High Courts, the approach adopted by the first respondent in passing the impugned Ext.P3 is only arbitrary and the same cannot stand. 3. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the department points out that the order Ext.P3 issued under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is one appealable before the Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act. The above position is not disputed. I am not inclined to accept the statement on behalf of the petitioner that Ext.P3 requires to be considered even at the first instance by this Court, rather than relegating the petitioner to the statutory appeal. I say so because Ext.P3, on the face of it deals with certain transactions and makes certain comments on some of the aspects of the case. 4. I say so because Ext.P3, on the face of it deals with certain transactions and makes certain comments on some of the aspects of the case. 4. Having regard to the quality of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the nature of the contentions of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that any appeal of the petitioner against Ext.P3 requires to be entertained and considered by the Tribunal. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner submits an appeal against Ext.P3 within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. To enable the petitioner to seek appropriate interlocutory reliefs before the Tribunal, it is hereby directed that all proceedings on the basis of Exts.P3, P4 and P5 will stand suspended for a period of four weeks.