1 3.itxa1028.13.doc sbw IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2013 Honrao Nitin Bhimashankar ..Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward(3)Solapur ..Respondent Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude i/b. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for Appellant. Mr. Tejveer Singh for Respondent. CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON,JJ. DATE : 31st MARCH, 2015. P.C.: This Appeal is by Assessee. It is directed against order dated 19th July, 2012 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune. Assessee preferred Appeal before Tribunal and in relation to assessment year 2005 06. Assessee challenged order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Pune, dated 17 th September, 2009. Assessee raised two grounds. ground no.1 pertains to addition of Rs.21,54,611/ under section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act and ground no.2 pertains to addition of Rs.1,04,628/ under section 69B of Income Tax Act. On both counts, Assessee succeeded. Assessee's Appeal was allowed. Tribunal has held that there is 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2020 17:06:58 ::: 2 3.itxa1028.13.doc substance in contentions of Assessee's representative and, therefore, order of Commissioner was set aside. matter was restored to file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. On both grounds, this is approach of Tribunal. 2] It is not argument before us that Tribunal itself should have allowed entire Appeal and order of restoration or remand to Assessing Officer, was uncalled for. argument is that during course of consideration of grounds, Tribunal erroneously recorded one concession on interpretation of Rule 6DD of Rules 1962. That concession was given by Assessee's Advocate and Tribunal has relied upon same. That is substantial question of law. 3] After hearing Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Assessee in support of this Appeal, we are unable to agree. All that Tribunal has done, is to accept grounds raised by Assessee in Appeal and argument in support thereof. That enabled Tribunal to set aside concurrent orders one of Assessing Officer and secondly of First Appellate Authority. However, for closer scrutiny and verification of claims, from which these grounds arise that Tribunal thought it fit to restore matter to file of Assessing 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2020 17:06:58 ::: 3 3.itxa1028.13.doc Officer for fresh consideration and in accordance with law. Tribunal has powers to do so and that is not in dispute. We do not see how Assessing Officer would be bound by any observation and finding and which according to learned Senior Counsel is based on concession of advocate for Assessee and erroneously given. When matter is before Assessing Officer, he will scrutinize it in accordance with law. If it is question of law no amount of concession can bind Assessing Officer and he will have to read provision and place his interpretation on same. In such circumstances, apprehension of Senior Counsel is totally unfounded. Based on that, we cannot entertain this Appeal. Appeal raises no substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. K. MENON,J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2020 17:06:58 ::: Honrao Nitin Bhimashankar v. Income-tax Officer, Ward(3), Solapur