- (1.) These six income-tax appeals by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act of 1961'] in relation to the same assessee, arising out of similar nature and inter-related orders, and involving similar nature substantial question of law, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
(2.) Put in a nutshell, these appeals, relating to the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82, have their genesis in the orders dated 29.04.2004 wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur ['the CIT(A)'] found that the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] had failed to carry out the directions given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['ITAT'] in the orders passed in the earlier round of the proceedings when the matters were restored to the file of the AO for decision afresh; and whereby the CIT(A) directed the AO to deal with the issue regarding claim of higher rate of depreciation on the building allegedly forming the part of plant and machinery in accordance with the directions of the ITAT. The respective appeals filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order dated 29.04.2004 were dismissed by the ITAT by a common order dated 20.02.2007. First three of the present appeals by the revenue (ITA Nos. 139/2007, 35/2008, 31/2008) arise out of this common order dated 20.02.2007. The revenue also made the respective rectification applications under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 before the CIT(A) who proceeded to reject the same by the common order dated 12.08.2004. The appeals filed by the revenue against this order dated 12.08.2004 were also dismissed by the ITAT by another order of the even date i.e.,20.02.2007. Next three appeals by the revenue (ITA Nos. 117/2008, 70/2008, 142/2008) arise out of this other order dated 20.02.2007.
(3.) The sum and substance of the matter remains that in the respective orders dated 20.02.2007, the ITAT found the CIT(A) perfectly justified in issuing directions to the AO for compliance of its order as made in the earlier round of the same proceedings. The ITAT, thus, found no case for interference. Assailing the orders so passed by the ITAT and CIT(A) in these appeals, the revenue seeks to contend that in an appeal filed after the amendment to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 251 of the Act of 1961, as made w.e.f. 01.06.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer; and hence, the order dated 29.04.2004, as passed by the CIT(A), remains wholly unauthorised. Only the question of power of the Commissioner (Appeals) after the aforesaid amendment being in question in these appeals, we need not elaborate on all the factual aspects. A brief reference to the background aspects would suffice.;