ORDER 1. Heard Learned Counsel on both sides. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These civil appeals are filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the ground of delay of 761 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) in respect of leasing its telecasting rights to overseas customers. The AO disallowed the Assessee's claim by holding that the profit derived by the Assessee is not from the export of goods or merchandise; that the receipts are nothing but realisation of TV/films rights given on lease; that intangible rights are not goods or merchandise for the purposes of Section 80HHC of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) claiming a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), the Assessee carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, an additional ground was taken by the Assessee. Vide the said additional ground, the Assessee contended that the production of films was a manufacturing activity and so, it was entitled to the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act. The Assessee gave reasons why it did not earlier raise the said additional ground before the AO or before the CIT(A). 6. Before the Tribunal, the Assessee submitted that the issue of benefit under Section 80IA of the Act was considered by the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1999-2000. A copy of the order passed by the CIT(A) was also filed before the Tribunal which indicated that the Revenue had accepted the case of the Assessee that it was entitled to a deduction under Section 80IA of the Act for the asst. yr. 1999-2000. In fact, for the asst. yr. 1999-2000, the matter appears to have been remitted to the AO only for the purpose of quantification of the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Consequently, in respect of asst. yr. 1994-95, which is the subject-matter of present civil appeals, the matter also stood remitted to the assessing authority. The Revenue then carried matter in appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Act. Consequently, in respect of asst. yr. 1994-95, which is the subject-matter of present civil appeals, the matter also stood remitted to the assessing authority. The Revenue then carried matter in appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Act. On account of a delay of 761 days, the income-tax appeal was dismissed. Against the said order, these appeals were filed in which this Court framed the following question vide order dt. 8th May, 2009: "Whether producing a film would amount to manufacture under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act ?" Accordingly, these civil appeals have come up for hearing today. On going through the record, we find that before the AO and CIT(A). the Assessee had not claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Consequently, no material was brought on record indicating the process undertaken or the activity undertaken by the Assessee which would constitute manufacture or processing of goods under the Explanation to Section 33B of the Act. However, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of the rule of consistency and has remitted the case to the AO only for the reason that for asst. yr. 1999-2000, the matter was pending, on remission, before the AO. 7. Today, we are informed by learned senior counsel for the Assessee that the Assessee has succeeded before the AO on the matter being remitted back to the AO for the asst. yr. 1999-2000. By separate orders, according to learned senior counsel for the Assessee, it has succeeded before the AO in respect of other assessment years also and it has been held that the activity undertaken by the Assessee constituted manufacture under the Explanation to Section 33B of the Act. We are not sure whether the Revenue has preferred any appeal from the order of assessment or from the order of CIT(A). In the above circumstances, we remit the case to the High Court to consider the following aspects: (a) Whether the Revenue has accepted the order of the AO/CIT(A) for the asst. yr. We are not sure whether the Revenue has preferred any appeal from the order of assessment or from the order of CIT(A). In the above circumstances, we remit the case to the High Court to consider the following aspects: (a) Whether the Revenue has accepted the order of the AO/CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 in favour of the Assessee as claimed by the Assessee by not filing any appeal to the High Court/this Court; (b) Whether the Revenue has accepted the order of the AO in favour of the Assessee on the above question of applicability of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of the assessment year in question in the present case; and (c) If the High Court comes to the conclusion that the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the lower authorities on the applicability of Section 80IA of the Act then, in that event, the High Court may consider the present case on merits. If the High Court comes to the conclusion that adequate material is not placed on record by the Assessee in respect of the activities undertaken by it, then the High Court may remit the case to the AO for de novo consideration. 8. The civil appeals filed by the Revenue are, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.