:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2007 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Central-I. ...Appellant. Vs. Tracstar Investments Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. Parvez Alam i/by Roy’s Law Firm for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. Both these appeals arise from the common order of the Tribunal dated 31.1.2005. The questions of law as formulated in Para-5 of the appeal memo are as under. (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in treating the flats in respect of which addition of Rs.2,33,15,680 were made as business assets and thereby deleting the addition to net wealth? (B) Whether judicially there was any reasonable basis for considering the flats as business assets and not as residential house property subject to wealth tax? :2: 2. The learned Tribunal after considering the facts and questions of law while disposing of the appeals in Para 4 issued following directions. "In facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts to come to the conclusion for Annual Year 2001-2002 also. In fact and circumstances, we restore the matter back to Assessing Officer to the issue as per law and facts including provisions of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act and facts discussed after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee". 2. In other words, the question has been left open to the consideration of the Assessing Officer. In the light of that, the questions of law as framed would not arise and consequently both the appeals are disposed of. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)