COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. OUSEPH CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS I. T. R. has come up before us on a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in R. A. No. 240/coch/89. The following questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal: "1) Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the disadvantages noted in the enclosure to the reference application,i ) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in remitting the case to the officer in a restricted/closed manner? ii) should not the Tribunal have made an open remand? 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also for the reasons noted in the enclosure the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 54f of the Income-tax Act?"

(2.) THE dispute herein lies in a very narrow compass. THE assessee's residential building in Panampilly Nagar was sold. He constructed another residential building at Kottayam. He has got another building at Thodupuzha , where, it is stated that a firm, of which he isa partner is conducting business. THE house at Thodupuzha is admittedly a residential house. If the house at Thodupuzha is a residential house, then the assessee will not get the benefit of Section 54f. THE assessing officer took the stand that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 54f. This was endorsed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ). THE assessee has filed appeal before the tribunal. THE Tribunal ultimately remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. In the remand order what the Tribunal had stated is that if on 4. 4. 1986, the assessee's family were present in the impugned premises, it could be treated as a residential property. It also directed to find out whether any portion is being occupied for business and if so which is that portion. Thus the remand is made to the assessing officer.