WMP.Nos.184 & 186/2020 WMP.Nos.184 and 186 of 2020 respectively in WP.Nos.39481 & 39482 of 2005 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J COMMON ORDER I have heard Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepting notice for respondents. 2. These miscellaneous petitions have been filed seeking to clarify common order dated 26.10.2017 in W.P.Nos.39481 & 39482 of 2005 respectively. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that this Court, while allowing W.P.No.39481 of 2005, did not set aside order dated 14.10.2005 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity, CIT(A)] in its entirety, that said order passed by CIT(A) was set aside only in so far as paragraph 4.2.1 and that petitioner was given liberty to file separate appeal questioning validity of search operations. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in paragraph 7 of common order passed by this Court dated 26.10.2017, it has been stated that W.P.No.39481 of 2005 was allowed, impugned therein was set aside and liberty was given to petitioner file appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, Tribunal) questioning validity of search operations. It is also submitted by learned counsel WMP.Nos.184 & 186/2020 that Tribunal is opinion that when W.P.No.39481 of 2005 was allowed and impugned order therein was set aside, question would be as to whether appeal will lie against order that was set aside. 5. In paragraph 6 of common order dated 26.10.2017, it has been stated as follows : Be that as it may, decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka holds field, wherein, it has been held that, ITAT would be entitled to go into very foundation for block assessment, which is search operation. Therefore, finding rendered by CIT(A) in impugned order, particularly in para 4.2.1 is set aside and petitioner is given liberty to file separate Appeal, questioning validity of search operation. 6. reading of above extracted paragraph would clearly indicate that what was set aside by this Court is paragraph 4.2.1 of order dated 14.10.2005 passed by CIT(A) and not order in its entirety. That is precisely reason, for which, liberty was granted to petitioner to file separate appeal questioning validity of search operations. No doubt, in paragraph 7 of common order passed by this Court dated 26.10.2017, it has been stated that W.P.No.39481 of 2005 was allowed. However, liberty was granted to petitioner to file appeal to Tribunal. Due to inadvertence, instead of mentioning that W.P.No.39481 of 2005 was allowed WMP.Nos.184 & 186/2020 to extent indicated, it has been mentioned as W.P.No.39481 of 2005 was allowed. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in forming opinion that appeal may not lie. Therefore, this aspect needs to be clarified. 7. Accordingly, above miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by clarifying that what was set aside by this Court in common order dated 26.10.2017 is only paragraph 4.2.1 of order dated 14.10.2005 passed by CIT(A) and therefore, petitioner is entitled to pursue his appeal filed before Tribunal questioning validity of search operations. Tribunal is directed to decide appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 03.2.2020 RS WMP.Nos.184 & 186/2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J RS WMP.Nos.184 and 186 of 2020 respectively in WP.Nos.39481 & 39482 of 2005 03.2.2020 K. Nedunchezhian v. Commissioner of Income/The Deputy Commissioner of Income/The Commissioner of Income-tax