Judgment :

Leave granted.

In this case the grievance made by the appellant (assessee) is that although the High Court had specifically formulated the following question, quoted hereinbelow, it has failed to answer the said question which reads as follows:

"Whether the amount allegedly paid by the purchasers on different dates to the managing partners of the Firm could be brought to tax in the hands of the appellant-Firm."

We find merit in this contention. However, we find from the impugned judgment that there was another question, besides the question quoted hereinabove, which has been remanded by the High Court to the A.O. [See: para `8 of the impugned judgment]. Therefore, in our opinion the above-quoted question is also being remanded to the A.O. for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In short, the above question, in addition to the question remanded by the High Court, is also being remitted to the A.O.

Before concluding, one aspect needs to be highlighted. As can be seen from the impugned judgment, vide para `7, the entire unaccounted money stood taxed by the Department in the assessment year 1993-94 which, according to the impugned judgment, was erroneous, therefore, i