Appellate jurisdiction is confined to grounds raised in appeal; remand on unchallenged issues was impermissible.

An appellate authority must confine itself to the scope of the appeal and cannot travel beyond the grounds raised to remand the matter for fresh assessment on issues not challenged by the appellant. In the absence of an appeal or cross-objections by the other side, the authority cannot enlarge the dispute or direct enhancement on unassailed issues. Applying that principle, the direction to reopen and reassess matters outside the appeal was treated as beyond jurisdiction and impermissible, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority could remand the matter for fresh assessment by travelling beyond the grounds raised in appeal and directing consideration of issues not assailed by the assessee.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that an appellate authority acts within the confines of the appeal filed before it and cannot, in the absence of an appeal or cross-objections by the department, enlarge the scope of the dispute or enhance the assessment on issues not raised by the appellant. The prior decisions relied upon held that the power to adjudicate, vary or enhance assessment must be exercised only with respect to matters properly brought in appeal, and that a party not appealing is normally bound by the order under challenge. On that basis, the first appellate authority's direction to reopen and reassess matters beyond the appeal was outside jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The remand ordered by the first appellate authority was impermissible and was set aside; the appeals were allowed and the matter was sent back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

---