- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE following main substantial question of law is involved in this appeal : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment when the impugned order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax was held to be unsustainable in law ?  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order of assessment in review and learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 11th July, 2011 held that Commissioner of Income Tax could not have set aside the assessment order on the ground that assessment has not been conducted by the Assessing Officer in the way in which the Commissioner of Income Tax found to be the proper way. Thereafter, the Tribunal without assigning any reason and without upholding any of the reasons given by the Commissioner of Income Tax straightway held that in view of the totality of the reasons given in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer may proceed with the denovo assessment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the Tribunal held that the assessment could not have been interfered by the Commissioner of Income Tax, then in that situation the Tribunal should not have dismissed the appellant's appeal and the order passed by C.I.T. should not have been maintained.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue submitted that Commissioner of Income Tax has given detailed reasons in the order which was for consideration before the Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the assessee petitioner and, therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer may proceed to assess the case of the petitioner.;