B.P.JEEVAN REDDY C.J. - (1.) HAVING heard counsel for both the assessee and the Revenue, we are of the opinion that a question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal. The assessee has asked three questions to be referred, namely: "(1) Whether, in view of the fact that the CIT (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order under S. 154 on the ground that the order of the ITO has merged in the appellate order, therefore, the ITO cannot rectify his order under S. 154, the Tribunal was legally justified in remanding the case for fresh assessment without setting aside the view and the findings of the CIT (A) ? (2) Whether, in view of the fact that the order of the ITO has merged in the order of the CIT (A), the ITO has jurisdiction to pass an order under S. 154 ? (3) Whether, in view of the fact that the order of the ITO has merged in the order of the CIT (A) and no rectification could be made by the ITO under S. 154, the Tribunal was legally justified in restoring the case to the ITO for fresh assessment ?"
(2.) BUT , in our opinion, it would be sufficient if we direct question No. 1 to be stated under S. 256(2) of the IT Act. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 suggested by the assessee are merely argumentative in nature. The very point is involved in question No. 1. The income -tax appeal is allowed. Question No. 1 shall be stated as directed above. No costs.C;