The learned Income Tax Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on the record, has formed a view that "Commonality of purpose" is also quite evident here among the members of the- AOP, and this is another feature that leads us to believe that an AOP is very much existence". Besides for the determination of the proposition, if the land was being used for the housing project, so as to attract the provision of Section 2(5)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which is a question of fact; the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the forum of original jurisdiction and in this behalf, has mentioned "While an AOP has indeed been set up for ultimate commercial sale of houses, the pertinent documentary evidence has not been properly sorted out/collated/analysed. It is not conclusively established from the assessment record that the "Court of original record" (office of the DCWT), was fully apprised in this regard. From the ambient circumstances, it appears that at least some of the relevant documentary evidence was placed for the first time before the first appellate authority. A property appraisal of the pertinent documentary evidence, including site plans for the different housing projects/schemes cited in the body of the assessment order and necessary permission from the competent authority approving the said housing schemes is fundamental and is necessary in order to record a firm finding whether the provisions of Section 2(5)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (since repealed) are attracted or not. We will therefore, remand matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo appraisal/requisition of the pertinent documentation".
2. In the light of above, we do not find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, any question of law, has arisen for the determination in this appeal Dismissed.