Limited remand cannot reopen concluded service-of-notice issues where final findings already exist.

A first appellate authority cannot reopen a concluded issue on a limited remand when the Tribunal has confined the scope of reconsideration. The service of notice under section 148, though a jurisdictional fact, had already been found to have been duly served by registered post in the earlier round and that finding had attained finality. The remand did not authorise re-adjudication of that issue, and the authority was bound to decide only within the terms of remand. The Tribunal therefore acted correctly in setting aside the attempt to revisit service of notice and in directing adjudication on merits within the remand limits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority, after a limited remand by the Tribunal, could reopen and re-adjudicate the question of service of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when that issue had already been decided in the earlier round.

Analysis: The earlier round had already considered the service of notice issue and recorded a factual finding that the notice under section 148 had been duly served by registered post, a finding that was affirmed by the Tribunal. Service of notice is a jurisdictional fact, but once that fact has been conclusively determined between the parties, it cannot be re-agitated in the same proceedings on the guise that the original assessment was a nullity. The remand by the Tribunal was limited in scope and did not reopen concluded issues. A subordinate appellate authority cannot travel beyond the terms of remand or disturb issues that had attained finality, as that would undermine the hierarchical structure of adjudication and prolong litigation indefinitely.

Conclusion: The first appellate authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the service-of-notice issue on remand, and the Tribunal was right in setting aside that approach and directing adjudication on merits within the confines of the remand.

---