- (1.) THE present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.05.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in I.T.A. No.476/Alld./1998 for the assessment year 1994 -95.
(2.) ON 01.12.2011, the appeal was admitted by a Co -ordinate Bench on the following substantial questions of law: - "i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer after misreading upon the judgment of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and without considering the order passed by the Tribunal relating to assessment year 1990 -91, 1991 -92, 1992 -93 and 1993 -94? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in not allowing the claim of the appellant -assessee without going through the evidence and simply relying upon the observations made by the assessing officer, though, being last fact finding authority? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in applying the principles of res judicata in the present case instead of considering the pith and substance of the matter before itself? iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in treating the charge of interest u/s 234 -A, 234 -B, 234 -C to be technical instead of not using the specific charging Sections?'
(3.) WITH this background, we have heard Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the department. From the record, it appears that the Tribunal has observed in its order that: - "As per his impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has restored back these issues to the file of the AO for fresh examination and decision on this elimited issued. Since these issues have been set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO the grounds of appeal challenging the confirmation of these disallowances are not correct. It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that as per counsel of the assessee, the issue required further investigation and the AO had no objection to the restoration of these issued for fresh examination. In view of these facts, the ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 of additional ground No.2 quoted above, are erroneous and devoid of merit. These grounds of appeal are, therefore, rejected.";