RUPESH P MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 27.6.2014 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-7, Mumbai restoring the matter to the file for fresh assessment. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2009-10.

The issue raised by the assessee in this appeal in ground no.1 is against restoring the matter to the file of the AO by CIT(A) for making fresh assessment after necessary verification which was in violation of the provisions of section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the restoration is not permitted the Act. The ld.AR submitted before us that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in violation of provision of section 251 of the Act by setting aside the assessment order and restoring the same to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after necessary verification. Therefore the ld.AR argued before us that order of ld. CIT(A) be set aside and ld CIT(A) be directed to adjudicate the matter on the facts and as per law. 3. Ld. DR has very fairly agreed with the submissions of the ld.AR. 4. After considering the facts before us, we find that the ld. CIT(A) restored the matter back to the file of the AO to decide the issue and make assessment afresh meaning thereby that the matter has been set aside which is not permissible in law in terms of the provisions of section 251 of the Act. For the sake of clarity we reproduce relevant extract of the CIT(A) order as under : “Reasons for the decision 5. I have carefully considered the matter. The AO is directed to verify the following: (i) The claim of the appellant that FBT of Rs.10,25,000/- was first shown as income by adding it to salary income and then it was allowed as perquisite. [ii] The details of occupancy / allotment/ completion of the property with regard to the claim of deduction of Rs.4,93,208/ - made u/ s. 24(b) of the Act.