Shri Sharad B. Pitti vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income ...

             THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
                    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                                  I.T.T.A.No.297 of 2006
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

         Heard Mr. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the appellant

and Ms. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant against the order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.38/Hyd/2001 for the assessment year 1996-97.

3. After a detailed hearing on 25.07.2006, this Court framed the following question as substantial question of law for consideration:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal having found that the appellant was the owner of the personal effects and that the creditworthiness of the purchasers could not be doubted was correct in law in directing the revenue to conduct investigation afresh on the question whether these were personal effects ?

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the above issue, Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for a fresh consideration. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue was set aside and matter was remanded back to the assessing officer vide the order dated 18.12.2001.

5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, though the remand order was passed by the Tribunal on 18.12.2001 and the limitation period for passing consequential order on remand as contemplated under Section 153(3) of the Act is one year from the end of the financial year in which the order is passed, assessing officer has not yet passed the consequential order on remand.

6. Without expressing any opinion in this regard, we are of the view that since the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer after setting aside the adverse order of CIT(A), no live issue can be said to survive for consideration in this appeal.

::3::

7. Appeal is accordingly closed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 22.02.2023 LUR