JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. This appeal by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11 April 2014. The assessment year to which the appeal relates is AY 2001-02. 2. The assessee has raised several questions of law, of which the following has been pressed: - “Whether on a true and correct interpretation of law, it was proper for the Tribunal to set aside the order of CIT(A) to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-adjudicate and re-compute the penalty leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act that has now become time barred due to operation of Section 275(1A) read with Section 153 of the Act.” 3. The relevant facts are as follows: The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2001-02, declaring a total income of Rs.25,48,670. The assessment was finalised on 29 March 2004 by an order of assessment determining the total income of Rs.50,53,418/-. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 31 March 2006. On the basis of the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.9.82 lacs on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 27 April 2007. Subsequently, on 31 October 2007, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by reducing the additions made on account of the gross profit rate. On 18 September 2013, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order imposing the penalty. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee on 11 April 2014 and has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, with a direction to readjudicate and recompute the penalty leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in terms of the amended order of assessment. 4. The facts which have emerged before the Court, would indicate that the order of penalty was passed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the unamended order of assessment. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part, and reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Once the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee, the original assessment was required to be modified. Moreover, the order on penalty had to be passed afresh. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part, and reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Once the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee, the original assessment was required to be modified. Moreover, the order on penalty had to be passed afresh. According to the assessee, the period of limitation for doing so, is contained in the proviso to sub-section 1A of Section 275 of the Act. The grievance of the assessee is that since the Tribunal, has directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, that would amount to a waiver of the bar of limitation which would be impermissible. 5. We find from the operative part of the order of the Tribunal, that while restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal has directed him to "readjudicate and recompute the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act". The expression 'readjudicate' and 'recompute' would clearly indicate that the Assessing Officer would have to apply his mind to all aspects including of limitation. Hence, we clarify that, in giving effect to the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer shall also have due regard to the issue of limitation and we keep all the rights and contentions of the assessee open, upon remand. Hence, in this view of the matter, it is not necessary to answer the questions of law as framed. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.