Reasonable delay in implementing a Tribunal remand governs whether late revenue action is permissible, and refund direction sustained.

A prolonged delay in giving effect to an appellate remand was held unreasonable: the court declined to resolve which statutory amendment governs limitation but, assuming the pre-amendment position, found that an excessive delay in passing an order to implement the Tribunal's directions could not be justified. Consequently the Revenue was not permitted to act at this late stage, the direction for refund as previously ordered remains effective, and additional time was granted for compliance. The decision focuses on the reasonableness of delay in remand compliance and the operative effect of sustaining the refund direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of approximately ten years in passing an order giving effect to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's remand order (dated 16.09.2016) is reasonable and whether the Revenue can be permitted to pass an order giving effect at this stage.

Analysis: The assessment for the relevant year was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Tribunal directed a remand to the Assessing Officer on 16.09.2016 to exclude certain comparables. Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.06.2016; the parties advanced rival contentions on which version of Section 153 would govern limitation. The Court did not resolve the broader question of which version of Section 153 applies, keeping those rival contentions open for an appropriate case. The Court proceeded to assess whether, even assuming the pre-amendment position urged by the Revenue, a ten-year delay in giving effect to the Tribunal's directions could be regarded as reasonable.

Conclusion: The delay of ten years in passing an order giving effect to the Tribunal's remand is unreasonable. The Revenue has not made out grounds to entertain interference; the appeal is dismissed and the direction for refund (as ordered by the Single Judge) remains effective, with the time for compliance extended by eight weeks.

---