Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the CIT(A) was justified in partially setting aside the assessment of the ITO for considering the question of status ?" The assessee is a company and it was assessed for the asst. yr. 1974-75 in the status of a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The assessee went on appeal against the order of the assessment to the CIT(A) challenging that part of the order holding that the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested and in appeal filed, it challenged against certain other disallowances made in the computation of its income. The CIT(A) granted relief in respect of certain additions made, but set aside the order of the assessment on the question of status alone. The CIT(A) held that it was fair and reasonable to send back the matter to the ITO to deal with the question of status de novo on the lines indicated in the order of the Tribunal for the preceding asst. yr. 1973-74 in ITA 275 (Mad) 1977-78 dt. 21st December, 1978. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal in respect of the relief granted and contended that the order of the CIT(A) setting aside the assessment only on one point, viz., the determination of the status of the assessee would create an anomalous situation for the ITO while making the reassessment in pursuance of the direction of the CIT(A). The Tribunal did not accept the contention urged on behalf of the Revenue on the ground that it was purely a matter of judicial discretion on the part of the CIT(A) and when the Revenue did not dispute the position that the question of status was required to be reconsidered after a thorough investigation of all necessary facts, it will not affect in any way the consideration of the other matters of the assessment. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue and on the basis of the directions of this Court, the question of law set out supra has been referred to usMr. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue and on the basis of the directions of this Court, the question of law set out supra has been referred to usMr. C. V. Rajan learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that if the direction of the CIT(A) is given effect to it will create anomalous situation for the Revenue to give effect to his order as only the question regarding the status of the assessee was set aside and it would have been better if the entire assessment was set aside. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand supported the order of the Tribunal. Under s. 251 of the IT Act, the CIT(A) in appeal against order of assessment, is empowered to pass any order by way of confirming, refusing, enhancing or annulling the assessment order or to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the AO for making a fresh assessment in accordance with the direction given by the AAC and after making such further inquiry as may be necessary. If he thought fit, he is also empowered to make enhancement of the income assessed. The powers of the CIT(A), while exercising his appellate powers are wide and it lies purely within his discretion to set aside the entire order of assessment or to set aside a part of the assessment order with a direction to the assessing authority to consider the point after making such further enquiry as may be directed by him. The discretion exercised by the CIT(A) in the instant case was found by the Tribunal neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The CIT(A) felt that the order of assessment should be set aside only on one point in view of the fact that there was an earlier order by the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year and he, therefore, directed the AO to determine the question on status after investigating the necessary factual material. We are of the view that the anomalous situation that is apprehended on behalf of the Revenue does not exist as the question of status has to be reconsidered after investigating all necessary facts and it would not in any way affect the consideration of the other matters of the assessment. We are of the view that the anomalous situation that is apprehended on behalf of the Revenue does not exist as the question of status has to be reconsidered after investigating all necessary facts and it would not in any way affect the consideration of the other matters of the assessment. Hence, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has exercised his discretion properly and the exercise of his discretion in the manner he has done cannot be regarded as either arbitrary or unwarranted. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the direction given by the CIT(A) does not call for any interferenceIn CIT vs. S. K. Ulagammal Achi TC 55R.428, this Court held that the powers of CIT(A) is very wide and when the AAC has decided with respect to two items in the appeal preferred before him and has not decided with reference to third item and directed the ITO to reconsider the order, such an order passed by the AAC was held to be within the powers conferred upon him under the IT Act. Following the said decision, we are of the view that it is open to the CIT(A) either to set aside the entire assessment or to pass such an order as he thinks fit. In the instant case the Tribunal for an earlier year directed the ITO to determine the question of status and when ITO determines the status of the assessee the logical consequences that would flow from such a determination of the ITO would be well reflected in the order of assessment made by the ITO. Therefore, we do not find that the CIT(A) has exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the ITO to consider the question of status alone. We are therefore, of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in upholding the order of the CIT(A). Since the question of law proceeds on the basis that there was a partial setting aside of the order by the CIT(A) we are of the view that the question should be reframed and the proper question is as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the ITO to consider the question of status alone, while considering the appeal preferred before him". We hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and accordingly we answer the question of law reframed by us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.