The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. M/S Motorola India Private Ltd

116-AIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA-362-2019 (O&M)Date of decision :16.12.2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, Versus ...... Appellant: M/s Motorola India Private Ltd....... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEK AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI Present :Mr. Tajender Joshi, Senior Standing Counsel with|Mr. Vikram Bali, Junior Standing Counselfor the appellant,000 AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) inThe present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), against the order dated24.08.2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I-1'New Delhi, in ITA No. 2941/DEL/2011 for the assessment year 2003-2004. oDThis appeal has been filed against the order of the ITATwhereby objection to the order of the appellate authority (as per which thematter was remitted back to the A.O.) has been challenged. Learned counselhas argued that Section 251 was amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and theSpecific power to remand back was consciously omitted by Parliament andtherefore, the Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) inremanding the issue back. We find that the four questions of law, whichhave been formulated deal with the merits of the deletions. However,learned counsel has very fairly argued that before the Tribunal these speciticgrounds were never raised or argued and only the legality of the order ofremand was urged ITA-362-2019(0&M) -?)- 3It transpires that the computation had been re-done after theremand order and as per that computation the assessee was entitled to certainallowances. Once the merits of those allowances have not been challengedbefore the Tribunal (thereby implying that in fact the assessee was notdisentitled thereto, on merits), we do not deem it appropriate to entertain thisquestion of law in the present case and dismiss this appeal with theobservation that the issue regarding the computance of the Commissioner toremand back has not been examined in the case and the order of the Tribunalwould also be deemed to be limited to the facts of the present case and cannot be used as a precedent. 4Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending Civil Misc,Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARIT)JUDGE(VIVEK PURI)16.12.2019JUDGEJankiWhether speaking/reasonedYes/NoWhether Reportable :Yes/No (AJAY TEWARIT)