JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal in exercise of its judicial discretion.
2. We would normally decline to interfere with the exercise of such judicial discretion by the Tribunal. We have not been shown any extraordinary circumstances of this case calling for our interference.
3. The Tribunal had relied on the fact that in the decision rendered by this court concerning the same assessee, this court had observed that the asses-see had in the case before the court failed to utilise the opportunity which the Tribunal had given to place relevant materials to establish that the several activities carried on by the assessee constituted a single business. On the basis of material as was available on record, this court held against the assessee and found that the assessee’s activity by carrying on plantation business and as also in running curing works constituted separate businesses. The decision of this court is reported in Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT (No. 2) [1981] 131 ITR 223. That decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [19961 219 ITR 563.
4. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of a remand as it had failed to produce any further material before the Tribunal.
5. That was a matter for the Tribunal to consider and the Tribunal has chosen to exercise its discretion in favour of the assessee. That would not constitute an error of jurisdiction or any illegality which needs to be corrected by us. The Tribunal has given its reason for remanding the matter. It has observed that in respect of an associate company of the assessee which had similar business, the same Tribunal had held that those businesses constituted a single business. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the view that it was in the interest of justice to permit the assessee to adduce further relevant material before the appellate authority.
6. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the case of the associate concern on which reliance had been placed by the Tribunal, came up before this court in the case of C1T v. Blue Mountain Estates and Industries Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 616, and the decision of the Tribunal was held to be erroneous. Counsel for the assessee submits at the Bar that an appeal preferred by that assessee is now pending before the Supreme Court.
7. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of the Tribunal is one which is arbitrary or entirely beyond its judicial discretion. A Tribunal when it chose to provide further opportunity to one of the litigants before it, when it considered it just to do so is entitled to make an order of remand and the superior court will be very slow indeed to interfere with such an order.
8. Counsel for the assessee referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kali Charan Ram Chander v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 405, wherein the scope of the discretionary power of the Tribunal was discussed and it was held that even in cases where the parties did not ask for an opportunity of adducing further evidence, the Tribunal is not debarred from directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to take additional evidence on the lines indicated by the Tribunal in its order.
9. We answer the questions referred to us, namely :
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Madras High Court judgment in T. C. No. 426 of 1974 rendered in the assessee’s case for earlier years on the same set of facts, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in remitting issues raised before it back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the same afresh in the light of further facts the assessee has been allowed by the Tribunal to produce before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at this stage ?
(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s conclusion in permitting the assessee to produce further relevant facts at this stage is justified in law and is reasonable having regard to the fact that the assessee had not produced any such further materials at the assessment stage ?”
in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.