Supreme Court remits case for fresh consideration, emphasizes prompt resolution within three months.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court's decisions and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal was directed to conclude the proceedings within three months, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution of the case in compliance with previous directions and ensuring a fair consideration of the issues involved.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging common judgment of High Court in ITA Nos.58-60/2010 and 62-64/2010.

Analysis:
1. Background and Previous Directions:
- The case previously came before the Court in Civil Appeal No.153 of 1993, where specific directions were issued to resolve the questions raised by both parties.
- Three questions of law were referred to the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for consideration.

2. High Court's Decision and Remand:
- High Court answered the third question in favor of the assessee but remanded the first two questions back to the Tribunal.
- High Court found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting a fresh order instead of rectifying the original order.
- The matter was further remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of High Court's directions.

3. Assessing Officer's Decision and Appeal:
- Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
- The decision was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in separate orders.
- The assessee appealed to the Tribunal challenging the method of accounting and income computation.

4. Tribunal's Decision and High Court Challenge:
- Tribunal dismissed the appeals related to quantum and penalty.
- High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, prompting the current appeal.

5. Supreme Court's Ruling:
- Supreme Court found discrepancies in the Tribunal and High Court's decisions.
- Set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
- Directed the Tribunal to conclude the proceedings within three months from the receipt of the order.

6. Conclusion:
- The appeals were allowed without any order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution of the pending matter.
- The Supreme Court's decision aimed to ensure compliance with previous directions and a fair consideration of the issues involved.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal journey of the case, highlighting the key decisions made by various authorities and the ultimate ruling by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration of the matter in line with the original directions provided.

---