(Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against an order dated May 14, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Ahmedabad [the Tribunal, for short, hereafter] by which the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal.
In this appeal, the Revenue has put forward the following two questions for our consideration:
"[A]. Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the issue to file of the CIT (Appeal) relating to levy of additional tax u/s 143 (1)(a) of the Act.
[B].
Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the issue to file of the Assessing Officer, relating to disallowance of Rs.7.74,43,000/- being claim of interest."
So far as the first question is concerned, after hearing Ms. Bhatt, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue and after going through the order passed by the Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal has specifically recorded that in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was stated that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), vide order dated September 9, 2002 has already adjudicated the issue regarding additional tax levied under section 143(1A). However, the Tribunal, on going through the said order dated September 9, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nowhere adjudicated the issue regarding additional tax levied under section 143 (1A) amounting to Rs.7,01,134/-. In such circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and directed him to re-decide the issue after hearing both the sides in accordance with law including consideration of the various case laws which were cited before the Tribunal during the course of hearing.
In view of the fact that the asessee was the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we find that the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the purpose of re-deciding the said issue. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved insofar as the first question is concerned.
As regards the second question, we find that the Tribunal below in the order impugned has specifically recorded that in case assessee has not changed the method of accounting but merely has given effect of the changed system of EQI and after April 1, 1997 has recovered interest and principal as per EQI system, in that event, the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the claim of debit of Rs.7,74,43,000/- from the income of the current year as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal below also held that whether in the earlier year the assessee was following cash system of accounting needs verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the method of accounting followed by the asessee in earlier year and re-adjudicate the addition of of Rs.7,74,43,000/- afresh after hearing the assessee.
We find that the Tribunal itself has not arrived at any conclusion or recorded any findings whatsoever on the said question and thus, the Revenue will not be prejudiced in any manner if the matter is sent back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
In the result, we find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make it clear that we have otherwise not gone into the merits of the questions involved in the appeal.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING C.J.] mathew [J.B.PARDIWALA. J.] Top