JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. On 26.03.2015, we passed an order re-framing the question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') as follows : "A request has been made to direct the office to treat the case as Reference, and not an Application for Reference, as the Reference was called for by Division Bench of this Court, hearing tax matters, on 05.03.2009, and the statement of case has been referred by the Tribunal. We order accordingly. In the Reference Application, following question of law was raised before the Tribunal:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in quashing the CIT's order under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961?" The Tribunal had rejected the Reference, on the ground that no question of law arises. The Division Bench of this Court, however, felt that the question of law arises, and had called for the records. We are unable to appreciate, as to how the question framed in the order dated 05.03.2009, can be treated to be question of law. The question of law is a question, which arises from the facts of the case, on the applicability and interpretation of the relevant provisions of law, to arrive at a conclusion, which needs to be settled by the Court, or may have any cascading effect on the assessments to be made in subsequent years. It is an accepted principle in taxation, that assessment every year is a separate assessment, and that, for which the previous assessment will not bind the Assessing Authority. In the present case, it is submitted that the Tribunal allowed the appeal, on the ground that in the previous years, the Settlement Commission had decided the matter in favour of the assessee, and by which, the matter relating to ownership of M/s. Saroj International was decided. As regards M/s. Vimal Trading Corporation, the Tribunal followed the earlier years, on which the finding was accepted by the Revenue. As regards M/s. Vimal Trading Corporation, the Tribunal followed the earlier years, on which the finding was accepted by the Revenue. Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, gives powers to the High Court to re-frame the question of law, and thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we re-frame the question of law as follows:- "Whether the Tribunal erred in law, in setting aside the order of the CIT, on the ground that the ownership of M/s. Saroj International was decided by the Settlement Commission, whereas the order of the Settlement Commission is not the adjudication of the rights, and is by way of settlement, which is not binding for the subsequent years ?" The parties are allowed two weeks' time to prepare the matter. List for hearing on 22.04.2015." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') erred in law in not setting aside the order passed by the CIT (A) under Section 263 of the Act, in the interest of the Revenue. The order of the CIT (A) was perfectly justified order, inasmuch as, the proceedings, relating to the assessment year 1982-83, were not subject matter of settlement before the Settlement Commission. The CIT (A) had relied on the facts brought out in the search operations to the effect that Shri S.M. Saraf was running the business of M/s. Saroj Saraf, and in the statements recorded by the Officer on 13.05.1981, and the Income Tax Officer, SCC-I, Jaipur on 19.03.1980, Miss Saroj Saraf had shown her ignorance about the business done in the name of M/s. Saroj International. The Assessing Authority had made only protective assessment on Miss Saroj Saraf, holding that the income should regularly be clubbed in the hands of Shri S.M. Saraf. For the assessment year 1980-81, the Income M/s. Saroj International had been clubbed in the hands of the assessee. It is submitted that since in the previous years, it was held that the business was being done by Shri S.M. Saraf in the name of his daughter, the order of the Income Tax Officer was required to be set aside in the interest of the Revenue. 4. It is submitted that since in the previous years, it was held that the business was being done by Shri S.M. Saraf in the name of his daughter, the order of the Income Tax Officer was required to be set aside in the interest of the Revenue. 4. It is submitted that the ITAT committed a gross error in setting aside the order of the CIT (A) under Section 263 of the Act only on the ground that the matters relating to assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81, were pending before the Settlement Commission. The Commissioner has acted in the interest of Revenue, and that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission related the assessments for the previous years. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the order passed by the Tribunal was a consent order. The Senior Departmental representative had stated that he would be satisfied, if an observation is made that the assessment may be made on the final outcome of the Settlement Commissioner's order. It is submitted that in the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal, it was clearly held that the ITO had not committed an error, as he had followed the orders, on which the findings were accepted by the Revenue. In the absence of any error committed by him, there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue. The order of CIT (A) was passed by the department to the effect that it would be appropriate and proper to await for the decision of the Settlement Commission, and to apply it for all the years from the assessment year 1982-83 onwards, which years were not before the Settlement Commission. It was further observed that this would equally apply to any other assessee in whose hands the department is desirous of including the income treating him as the owner of the business of M/s. Saroj International. 6. We do not find that the Tribunal committed any error of law in setting aside the order of the CIT(A) under Section 263 of the Act. The Income Tax Officer had followed the decision, which was followed the decision in respect of the previous years, which were not challenged by the Revenue. The assessee had taken the matter to the Settlement Commission on the same issue namely, as to whether Shri S.M. Saraf, the assessee was doing the business in the name of M/s. Saroj International. The Income Tax Officer had followed the decision, which was followed the decision in respect of the previous years, which were not challenged by the Revenue. The assessee had taken the matter to the Settlement Commission on the same issue namely, as to whether Shri S.M. Saraf, the assessee was doing the business in the name of M/s. Saroj International. In the circumstances, the order of the ITO could not be said to have been passed erroneously, or against the interest of the Revenue, to interfere under Section 263 of the Act. It was made open by the ITAT, subject to the decision of the Settlement Commission, to apply the income of the assessee for all the years from assessment year 1982-83 onwards, and equally apply to any other assessee in whose hands the department desirous to treat him the owner of the business of M/s. Saroj International. 7. The orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner have not been brought on record. In our view, the opportunity given to the department was sufficient to protect the interest of the Revenue, for which the Commissioner had exercised his powers under Section 263 of the Act. 8. In our opinion, the interest of the Revenue would not suffer, on the observations made by the Tribunal that the subject to the orders of the Settlement Commission, the department is free to treat the income of M/s. Saroj International in the hands of Shri S.M. Saraf. 9. In the end, it was submitted that the orders, are to be made by the Income Tax Authorities, within a time frame, and that the orders under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, can be passed within one year. The Income Tax authorities thus could not have waited for the decision of the Settlement Commission. 10. We do not agree with the submission, inasmuch as, once it was made open to the department, it could have acted within the limitation from the date of the order of the Settlement Commission. 11. On the aforesaid discussion, the question of law is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The department will proceed accordingly.Question decided in favour of assessee. *******