Remand proceedings cannot reopen finally settled valuation issues or exceed the limited scope of remand.

In remand proceedings, an adjudicating authority cannot reopen an issue that has already attained finality in earlier appellate proceedings, nor can it expand the scope of remand beyond the limited question actually sent back for reconsideration. The settled finding on related person valuation, which was not challenged further, remained binding, and the remand was confined to the specific question of advertisement and sales promotion expenditure. Reliance on a Tribunal precedent later set aside by the Supreme Court was also impermissible once the connected issue had become final between the same parties. Judicial discipline required adherence to the earlier unchallenged finding and the final Supreme Court ruling, rendering the demand based on reopening unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in remand proceedings, the original authority could reopen the settled issue of related person valuation and rely again on a precedent already displaced by final appellate findings and the Supreme Court decision.

Analysis: The dispute involved two valuation questions, but the finding on relationship between the assessee and the distributor had attained finality in the earlier appellate round because that part of the order was not challenged further. The remand was therefore confined to the limited question of inclusion of advertisement and sales promotion expenditure, and the adjudicating authority could not enlarge the scope of remand. The later reliance on the Tribunal decision in the related case was also impermissible once that precedent had itself been set aside by the Supreme Court and the connected issue had attained finality between the same parties. Judicial discipline required the authorities to respect the earlier unchallenged finding and the final Supreme Court ruling.

Conclusion: The related person issue could not be reopened in de novo proceedings, and the impugned demand founded on such reopening was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded because the valuation dispute had already attained finality on the relevant issue, and the authorities acted beyond the scope of remand in re-agitating it.

Ratio Decidendi: An issue finally decided in earlier appellate proceedings and not carried further cannot be reopened in remand proceedings, and the authority on remand is bound strictly by the limits of the remand order.

---