Court held that the Tribunal had only remanded the matter for fresh consideration and had given opportunity to the assessee to bring in evidence also. The assessee could not be said to be prejudiced on account of the remand to the Assessing Officer. However while remanding the case, the Tribunal made certain observations, which, according to the assessee, caused it prejudice. There were observations in the order passed by the Tribunal that “without examining the copy of cheques physically, she deleted the penalty which is not proper” and “if the assessee fails to produce the necessary evidence the Assessing Officer is at liberty to take adverse inference”. For the purpose of entering into a conclusion on the veracity of the claim of the assessee that the transactions in question were through bank accounts, different modes of proof would be available. Physical examination of the cheques alone is not the only method. Direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence can be adduced to satisfy the assessing authority while coming to the conclusion on the issue remanded to it. Hence, the observations of the Tribunal restricting the option of the assessing authority to physical examination of the cheques in question could cause prejudice to the assessee. In the circumstances, while the order of remand in all these cases to the assessing authority, was valid, the assessing authority should consider and pass orders untrammelled by the observations in the order of the Tribunal and be free to accept evidence of any legally acceptable nature produced by the assessee in support of its claim. (AY.2008-09)