By the Court.—Heard Sri S.K. Garg, assisted by Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2008 pass by the respondent No. 1 has filed the instant writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.8.2004 with respect to the assessment year 2000-2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties this Court by the judgment and order dated 22.5.2008 remanded the matter to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to decide on the basis of the material on record. By the impugned order dated 25.7.2008, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow has directed the Assessing Officer to record the statement of Sri Dinesh Singh, ACA and to find out whether he has been representing before the Department in his individual capacity or as a partner of M/s. Sachdeva & Co. The Tribunal by the impugned order has further directed the assessing authority to summon Sri G.K. Lath, Chartered Accountant, and Record his statement as to in what capacity he has received the notice under Section 143(2) and whether he has misled the notice processor by stating that he is authorised to receive notices on behalf of the assessee.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the judgment and order dated 22.5.2008 a direction was issued by this Hon’ble Court to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to decide the matter on the basis of the material on record and the Tribunal was not directed to hold a fresh enquiry into the matter and by the impugned order dated 25.7.2008 the learned Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to hold a fresh enquiry regarding the service of notice upon Sri G.K. Lath, Chartered Accountant.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others, 1985 (1) SCC 260; Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2004) 5 SCC 1; Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal, AIR 1961 SC 182; Dharam Chand Jain v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 427 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal v. Ralson Industries Ltd., (2007) 2 SCC 326.

5. Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.7.2008 he has a remedy under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act before the Tribunal itself and the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow by which a direction has been issued to the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether the notice was served upon Sri G.K. Lath or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He further submits that by the judgment and order dated 22.5.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court the Tribunal was directed for fresh adjudication in the matter and as such there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.8.2004 for the assessment year 2000-01 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, an Appeal was preferred by the petitioner in this Court which was registered as Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2005. The said appeal was contested by the respondents and thereafter by the detailed judgment and order dated 22.5.2008, the matter was remitted back to the Income Tax Ap