RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of abovementioned three appeals bearing Nos. 252, 254 and 255 of 2007, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
(2.) THE facts have been noticed from IT Appeal No. 255 of 2007. Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 616/Chand/2004 for the asst. yr. 1996 - 97 raising the following substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the AO was justified in invoking provisions of s. 145(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing categorical finding of the CIT(A) that there was no ground for invocation of s. 145(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in arriving at correct invocation of s. 145(2) without giving the appellant any opportunity of being heard and de hors the plethora of material on record ? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in ignoring to consider the material on record and remitting the matter to the AO ? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reformulating ground of appeal not forming the subject -matter of appeal by the AO and against the express mandate of s. 254(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ? (6) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below, the impugned orders Annexs. A1 and A5 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law. -
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that in appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter on the issue of rejection of books of account was remanded back to the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) [for short, 'the CIT(A)'], where the same was still pending consideration. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue should have been decided by the Tribunal itself and the matter should not have been remanded. He further submitted that the observations made by the Tribunal while remanding the case back to the CIT(A) would prejudice the CIT(A) while deciding the matter afresh by him. The observations made by the Tribunal are strictly not in conformity with law.;