1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1672 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax VII, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Pancapri Hitec Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 22 June, 2010. P.C. : 1. We do not consider it appropriate to entertain this appeal by the Revenue inasmuch as the Tribunal by its impugned order dated 27 November 2007 has remanded the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for verifying the factual aspect of the matter and for a fresh decision thereupon. The Tribunal observed that from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) it appears that the claim was made by the assessee for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) by letter dated 27 March 2002 by which the assessee filed its claim for allowing a deduction on account of bad debts and withdrew its claim under Section 80-O. This aspect having not been 2 examined by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal remanded the proceedings. 2. During the course of the hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Reveune submits that the claim was not made by the assessee either in the return or during the course of the assessment proceedings and the assessee was hence barred from raising a claim. We do not find from the order of the Tribunal that the submission has been considered in the order of the Tribunal. The Revenue has a sufficient remedy available under Section 254 to move the Tribunal in that regard. In the circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this appeal at the present stage. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)