JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by J. K. Ranka J.-The instant appeal filed by appellant under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), is directed against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the ITAT") dated January 27, 2014, passed in ITA No. 720 relating to assessment year 2007-08. Brief facts as emerging on face of record, necessary for disposal of present appeal, are that assessee-respondent though had income through long-term capital gains, interest income and agricultural income but did not choose to file income-tax return under section 139 of Act. Consequent to information available with Revenue, notice under section 148 of Act was issued on January 15, 2010. However, it was observed by Assessing Officer that despite of several notices, neither income-tax return nor any other details were furnished in response to notice under section 148 of Act. However, letter was filed by assessee containing, inter alia, that assessee has no taxable income and, therefore, no return is required to be filed. However, on basis of information available with Assessing Officer and fact that assessee did not co-operate in either filing income-tax return nor providing any material. Assessing Officer proceeded to make assessment and it was observed by Assessing Officer that assessee had sold 2.548 hectare undivided land situated at village Narsinghpura, Patwar- Mahapura, Tehsil, Sanganer, Jaipur, jointly with Shri Chetram and Shri Roshan Kumar for sum of Rs. 9,45,00,000 on July 27, 2006, which fell for consideration during previous year relevant to year under appeal. assessee got Rs. 3,62,32,310 as his share of sale value out of total sale proceeds. On basis of information available with Assessing Officer, cost of acquisition was adopted as on April 1, 1981, and after considering other deductions under section 54B and other available deductions, Assessing Officer computed income at Rs. 3,04,24,409 as income chargeable under head "long-term capital gains". It was further noticed by Assessing Officer that as per bank details of Central Bank of India, Bad Ke Balaji, Jaipur, as well as Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank, there was deposit to tune of Rs. 46,99,000 on different dates and since source of receipt of said cash deposits in bank account was not shown/ proved to Assessing Officer, therefore, addition of said amount was also made. Assessing Officer, thus, assessed income at Rs. 3,52,29,339. Dissatisfied with said assessment, appeal came to be filed by assessee before Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) (for short "the CIT(A") before whom, on behalf of assessee, certain additional evidence under rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely, copies of sale deeds of land, valuation report and bank statements, etc., were filed as also claim under section 54F and explanation with regard to deposit in bank accounts were submitted. It has been observed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that additional evidence, which were placed by assessee under rule 46A was sent to Assessing Officer and remand report was sought from Assessing Officer with reference to additional evidence filed. It appears that Assessing Officer did consider additional evidence and sent report to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though objected to placing additional evidence on record. However, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did consider additional evidence placed on record so also other material and passed order dated May 22, 2012, dismissing appeal of respondent-assessee. Aggrieved with dismissal of appeal, appeal was preferred before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Before Tribunal, on behalf of assessee, it was pleaded that material, which was placed on record before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), though Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) admitted these documents, however, same was not properly considered by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and that sustenance of addition was contrary to material on record. It was further pleaded that addition was sustained in arbitrary manner. Tribunal, after considering submissions, has chosen to set aside assessment order directing Assessing Officer to pass order afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. This order of setting aside or allowing fresh inning to assessee is assailed before us by Revenue. Mr. Praveen Verma, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, appearing on behalf of Revenue, contended that assessee though had enjoyed taxable income and had huge unaccounted deposits in bank account but had not chosen to file return of income so also did not place on record any material before Assessing Officer despite of several opportunities having been granted. He further contended that assessee ought to have furnished return of income under section 139 even if claim of assessee had been that there was no taxable income but at least in pursuance of notice under section 148 of Act he was duty bound to file income-tax return as also to place on record other material desired by Assessing Officer consequent to initiation of proceedings under section 148 of Act. He further contended that assessee played hide and seek game with Department as on one hand even till last date he did not file any details, sought continuous adjournments and Assessing Officer finding no alternative had to pass assessment order in accordance with law on material available. He further contended that abruptly all material surfaced and were placed before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after adequate opportunity, forwarded material to Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer examined details and, after appreciation of evidence and after detailed analysis, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed appeal. However, Tribunal was not justified in remitting matter back to Assessing Officer granting assessee one more inning. He submitted that substantial questions of law arise out of order of Tribunal and need consideration by this court. We have considered submissions of officer appearing on behalf of Revenue and have perused impugned order so also orders of lower authorities. In our view, on basis of assessment order as well as order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we do find that approach of assessee is callous, non-co-operative and even basic documents in pursuance of notice under section 148, i.e., filing of income-tax return was not filed and Assessing Officer despite of adequate opportunity had granted several opportunities and passed order to best of had granted several opportunities and passed order to best of information available at his command. Even Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) did admit additional evidence under rule 46A, granted adequate opportunity to assessee and on basis of his finding dismissed appeal. Tribunal, while setting aside order of Assessing Officer, has chosen not to decide any issue. It may be different aspect that on material available with Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whether Tribunal ought to have restored matter back to Assessing Officer to grant opportunity afresh; nevertheless Tribunal in its view in interest of justice has restored matter back to Assessing Officer and we need not comment on finding of Tribunal but, in our view, no substantial question of law can be said to arise out of order of Tribunal as final fact finding authority has not decided any issue. In our view, assessee may have chosen not to file return/details before Assessing Officer earlier but nevertheless gets chance again to place all material on which he wishes to rely upon consequent to order passed by Tribunal. Both sides get another opportunity and if assessee fails again after adequate opportunity is being granted by Assessing Officer then Assessing Officer has again opportunity to pass order in accordance with law, which he deems appropriate. Thus, in our view, no question of law much less substantial question of law arise for consideration of this court, accordingly, appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed in limine. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gopi Ram Choudhary