JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.— This is a Revenue appeal arising out of the impugned order dated 19-5-2005 passed in IT (SS)A No. 10/Bang/2005 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-B to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that out of Rs. 11,16,000, only one lakh should be sustained without taking into consideration the various reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer to make such addition including the statement of the Bank Manager, the Over-draft facility availed, the statement of the assessee's brother and the material seized during search which indicated that the said amount belongs to the assessee and recorded a perverse finding? 2. Whether the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 5,25,750 before holding that only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 can be added to the income of the assessee and consequently foreclosing the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal? 2. The brief facts are, the revenue through competent authority has conducted search under Section 132 of Income Tax Act on 9-10-2001 on the premises of Ratnakar Bank, Bangalore Branch. In the course of the search, several fixed deposits were detected. Fixed deposits of Rs. 11,16,000/- in the name of assessee were found. A notice under Section 158BD of the Act was issued. The assessee filed block return in response to the notice. The Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings after recording the statements of Bank Manager, the assessee and his brother Mazhar Khan and passed assessment order on 31-3-2003 holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax of Rs. 8,27,830/-. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore in ITA No. 2/ACIT 7(1)CIT (A)Diii/2003-04. The first appellate authority, after going through the order passed by the Assessing Authority and after considering other materials on the file, has allowed the appeal of the assessee in part by order dated 8-12-2004 vide Annexure-B. holding that the assessee is liable to pay balance additional income tax to the extent of Rs. 5,90,250/- by modifying the order of Assessing Authority and reducing the liability from Rs. 11,16,000/-. 5,90,250/- by modifying the order of Assessing Authority and reducing the liability from Rs. 11,16,000/-. Assailing the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A No. 10/Bang/05 against the disallowance of remaining amount. The Tribunal, in turn, after perusal of the orders of Assessing Authority and first appellate authority and after going through the other material on record, allowed the appeal in part with a direction to the assessing authority to sustain an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- and to delete the balance addition. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has presented this appeal raising the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Revenue, at the out-set, is that the order passed by the Tribunal and the first appellate authority are liable to be set aside on the ground that the assessing officer, after due consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material on the file, has passed the order. He further submitted that the assessing officer has recorded the statements of the assessee, one of his brother and the Manager of the Bank and after due verification of respective accounts of about 15 account holders who had deposited the amount in fixed deposits, has passed the order. Therefore, he submitted that the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 4. As against this, learned Counsel for the assessee inter-alia contended and substantiated that the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and are passed after due consideration of all material on record. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. 5. After careful consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel on both sides and after perusal of the orders impugned passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, it is manifest on the face of the same that all the authorities have committed material irregularity for the reason that the case of the assessee is that there are totally 15 depositors comprising his brothers, father, brother-in-law, sisters etc,. They have opened accounts and deposited the amount in fixed deposit in their respective accounts and have availed the benefit of over-draft on the basis of said fixed deposits. They have opened accounts and deposited the amount in fixed deposit in their respective accounts and have availed the benefit of over-draft on the basis of said fixed deposits. But, it is not the case of the assessee that the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 11,16,000/- does not belong to him. As rightly pointed-out by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the assessing officer has committed grave error as he has not examined the other account holders who had deposited the amount in fixed deposits. He has recorded only the statements of the assessee, one of his brother and the Bank Manager and concluded the proceedings. There is some substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the assessee. After careful perusal of the order passed by the assessing officer and the first appellate authority, it is seen that totally 15 family members of the assessee opened their accounts and deposited the amounts in fixed deposits of Rs. 45,000/-, 46,000/- etc,. Further, it is significant to note from the orders impugned that all the 15 account holders have filed their respective affidavits stating the amounts deposited by them. Such being the case, the assessing officer ought to have examined all the account holders to ascertain the source of their income for making the fixed deposits. That exercise is not done. This aspect is neither considered nor any explanation is forthcoming. Enquiry is not done strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the assessing officer is liable to be set aside. 6. Both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal have committed error by extending the benefit without considering the relevant material on file. The case made-out by the assessee has neither been considered nor appreciated with reference to the relevant material on file. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the order of the assessing authority is liable to be set aside, the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal also cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed in part. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the order of the assessing authority is liable to be set aside, the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal also cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-B, dated 19-5-2005 in IT(SS)A No. 10/Bang/05 vide Annexure-A, the order passed by the first appellate authority dated 8-12-2004 in ITA No. 2/AICT 7(1)/CIT(A)III/2003-04 vide Annexure-B and the order passed by the assessing officer dated 31-3-2003 vide Annexure-C, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties or their counsel and decide the same expeditiously. The assessing officer is directed to examine all the account holders and decide the matter in the light of the observations made above. All the contentions are left open. 8. In view of this remand order for fresh consideration, question of answering the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal does not arise.