Satish Chandra, J.;- This is an appeal by the Revenue. Though several questions are raised, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law, which covers the other questions:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in admitted and adjudicating a ground of appeal regarding an observation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that pertained to the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter Parishad) which was not a party to the appeal" 2. The respondent was the appellant before the ITAT. An assessment order was passed in respect of respondent by the Assessing Officer dated 11.11.2008. The assessee has claimed status as a charitable Institution on being registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee had transferred some amounts to Mandi Parishad, which is another assessee. The Assessing Officer in respect of certain amounts transferred by the assessee to the Mandi Parishad raised a query as to why the development cess should not be treated as a non-charitable purpose, since Mandi Samiti has no control over its expenditure. One of the amounts transferred was vikas cess, which was collected and transferred to the Parishad by the assessee-respondent. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has no authority to check utilization of this development fund in the hands of the Mandi Parishad, and as such added the amount to the total income of the assessee. Similarly, another amount transferred to the Mandi Parishad was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal. The appeal amongst others was in respect of the two amounts transferred to the Mandi Parishad, firstly as an 'administrative expense' and secondly as 'vikas cess'. The CIT (A) found that the ground taken by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and held that both the amounts could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee, but in the hands of the Parishad for reasons set out in his order and also relied on the order of ITAT dated 21.4.2009 in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samitis, Barabanki and others. After having so held that these amounts transferred by the Mandi Samiti to Mandi Parishad must be accounted for by the Mandi Parishad as its business receipts, the CIT (A) observed that he was informed that the vikas cess collected by the Samitis and transferred to Mandi Parishad is not credited by the Mandi Parishad to its Income and Expenditure Account, but directly credited to 'Cess Fund' (Central Mandi Fund). The rest of the receipts from the Mandi Samitis were also treated by the Parishad as liabilities and directly credited in the Balance Sheet under 'Mandi Vikas Nidhi'. The CIT (A) held that the treatment of receipts by Mandi Parishad is not consistent with the Accounting Principles and payments treated as expenditure or application by Mandi Samitis shall be treated as business receipt by Mandi Parishad and that the Mandi Parishad cannot treat it as liability, as these receipts are firstly, non-voluntary contribution by Samitis, and secondly, non-refundable. Accordingly, CIT (A) directed the AO to make a reference to the Assessing Officer of Mandi Parishad to take remedial measures, if necessary, in the relevant assessment years to tax the relevant receipts in the hands of Mandi Parishad. 4. Aggrieved by these observations, the assessee approached ITAT, Lucknow Bench on various grounds including on the following observations:- "......This treatment of receipts by Mandi Parishad is not in consistency with the Accounting Principles. Payments treated as expenditure or application by Mandi Samitis have to be treated as business receipt by Mandi Parishad. The Parishad cannot treat it as liability, as these receipts are firstly, non-voluntary contribution by Samitis, and secondly, non-refundable." and in respect of the direction issued to the AO, which reads as under:- "In view of this, the AO is directed to make a reference to the Assessing Officer of Mandi Parishad to take remedial measures, if necessary, in the relevant assessment years to tax the relevant receipts in the hands of Mandi Parishad." 5. The attention of the Tribunal was drawn to an order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the ITAT 'B' Bench, Lucknow in C.O. No.9/Luc/04 in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Banthara vs. Income Tax Officer. There Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Banthra was in appeal. The attention of the Tribunal was drawn to an order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the ITAT 'B' Bench, Lucknow in C.O. No.9/Luc/04 in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Banthara vs. Income Tax Officer. There Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Banthra was in appeal. It was noted that the similar observations were made by the CIT (A) in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, against the order, the assessee then had filed cross objection and while adjudicating the said cross objection, it has been observed in paras 9 to 12 of the order dated 21.4.2010, which reads as under:- "9. A bare perusal of the common ground no.3 of the Cross Objection, already reproduced above, would clarify that the grievance of the assessee relates to the following common observations of the ld. CIT (A) in para 12.4 of the order dated 24.12.2009, para 10.4 of the order dated 24.12.2009 and para 12.5 of the order dated 23.12.2009. "12.4 Having accepted that the money transferred by Mandi Samiti to Mandi Parishad is application of income, what is important as well as essential is that the amount transferred by the Mandi Samiti in terms of payment to Mandi Parishad must be accounted for by Mandi Parishad as its business receipts. If this amount transferred to Mandi Parishad is not treated as advance but application of income by the Mandi Samit, it can not be treated as liability in the hands of Mandi Parishad. It has been informed that Vikas Cess collected by the Samitis and transferred to Mandi Parishad is not credited by the Mandi Parishad to its income and expenditure Account but directly credited to Cess Fund (Central mandi fund). The rest of the receipts from the Mandi Samitis are also treated by the Parishad as liabilities and directly credited in the Balance Sheet under Mandi Vikas Nidhi. This treatment of receipts by Mandi Parishad is not in consistency with Accounting Principles and treatment by Mandi Samiti. Payment treated as expenditure or application by Mandi Samitis has to be treated as business receipt by Mandi Parishad. The Parishad cannot treat it as liability as these receipts are firstly non-voluntary contribution by Samitis, secondly non-refundable and are not considered by Samitis as advances in books of accounts. Payment treated as expenditure or application by Mandi Samitis has to be treated as business receipt by Mandi Parishad. The Parishad cannot treat it as liability as these receipts are firstly non-voluntary contribution by Samitis, secondly non-refundable and are not considered by Samitis as advances in books of accounts. In view of this, the AO is directed to make a reference to the Assessing Officer of Mandi Parishad to take, remedial measures, if necessary, in all the relevant assessment years to tax the relevant receipts in the hands of Mandi Parishad." 10. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) was not dealing with the appeals relating to the Mandi Parishad and no material was available before him relating to the impugned issue, so these findings had been made unnecessarily, and without affording opportunity to the assessee as well as Mandi Parishad whose cases have been referred to by the ld. CIT (A). 11. In his rival submissions, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that as per the provisions contained in section 251 of the Income-tax Act, the ld. CIT (A) can make such observations. 12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the instant case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT (A) while referring to the cases of Mandi Parishads had not afforded any opportunity to the said assessees and it is also noticed that the ld. CIT (A) made these observatiions in spite of the fact that no such material relating to Mandi Parishads was available to him. In our opinion, these observations of the ld. CIT (A) are unnecessary because the facts of the case which is pending for adjudication are only to be considered. However, in the instant case, neither the material li fating to other issues was available to the ld. CIT (A) nor opportunity of being heard was given to the said assessees whose cases have been referred by the ld. CIT (A). We, therefore, modify the order of the ld. CIT (A) to this extent that the impugned observations made by him are unwarranted in the case of present assessees. CIT (A) nor opportunity of being heard was given to the said assessees whose cases have been referred by the ld. CIT (A). We, therefore, modify the order of the ld. CIT (A) to this extent that the impugned observations made by him are unwarranted in the case of present assessees. Accordingly, the Cross Objections by the assessees are partly allowed." Based on the view already taken, the grounds raised by the assessee on these counts were allowed. 6. The question for our consideration would be whether the Tribunal was right in taking the view that it has taken or that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in making the observations considering that they were not against the assessee, but a person, who was not a party to the assessment proceedings. 7. At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant, our attention is invited to the judgement of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [231 ITR 1]. A consideration of that judgement, would show that the issue, which has arisen in this appeal, did not arise in the said matter. The issue in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah (supra) was of production of additional evidence and the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The learned Division Bench there held that the scope of powers of the Appellate Authority was co-terminus with that of the Income Tax Officer. In the instant case, we are really not concerned with that issue. 8. The only question before us is, whether it is open to an assessee, who was in appeal before a competent Tribunal, to contend that in the appeal preferred by them, in respect of money transferred by them to another assessee, CIT (A) could not have made any observations in respect of that other assessee. 9. The legal position in the proceedings between the parties, who are in appeal before the Tribunal or Court, is that the Court addresses itself to the issues, which are before it and confines its exercise of jurisdiction to those grounds, which can result in deciding the appeal. In such proceedings and considering the very nature of the jurisdiction exercised by Tribunal or Court, is it open to the Tribunal or Court to issue a direction against a party, who is not before it. In such proceedings and considering the very nature of the jurisdiction exercised by Tribunal or Court, is it open to the Tribunal or Court to issue a direction against a party, who is not before it. The power of the Appellate Authority is normally co-extensive with that of the Original Authority. In the absence of any power in the Assessing Authority, it would not be open to the Appellate Authority to exercise a jurisdiction, which the Assessing Officer did not have. Learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to point out to us any provision, whereby the Assessing Officer in the course of proceedings for assessment can issue such directions. There is no dispute that certain moneys were transferred by the assessee to the Parishad another assessee. Considering the above, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 153 (C) of the Act would not apply. The admitted position is that the money has been transferred to the account of the Parishad. 10. There was no material before the CIT (A) while assessing the income in the hands of the assessee as to what another quasi judicial authority must do. Even if the order of the quasi judicial authority in assessing the income in the hands of the Mandi Parishad was at fault or erroneous, the remedy is for the Revenue to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. Proceeding for assessment of an assessee cannot be based on directions issued by another co-ordinate Tribunal or even a higher forum, if that was not the subject matter before it. That would be an exercise without jurisdiction. It is not open to another quasi judicial authority of limited jurisdiction, in the matter of lis between the assessee and revenue before it to proceed to determine the rights or liabilities of a third party, who is not before it. To that extent, we are of the considered opinion, that the learned Tribunal was right in relying on its earlier judgement in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Banthara (supra). The observations were clearly unnecessary and without jurisdiction. 11. In the light of that, in our opinion, the question as framed is devoid of merits and consequently, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. No order as to costs.