JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in ITA No. 577/Ahd/2011 for AY 2006-07, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with following proposed substantial questions of law. "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 37.37 crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in remanding the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer instead of upholding the CIT(A)'s decision confirming the addition of Rs. 17.7 crore on account of loss on preference shares written off?" 2. We have heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Shri R.K. Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee, who has appeared on caveat. 3. Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has fairly conceded that so far as proposed question No. (A) is concerned, it is answered against the Revenue by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 382/2016 and other allied Tax Appeals, by which in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier assessment year (upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel against the impugned judgment and order), the question is answered against the Revenue. It is not in dispute that while passing the impugned order the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order passed with respect to the preceding year in the case of very assessee. The decision of the learned Tribunal in the earlier preceding year, upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned Tribunal has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 382/2016 and other allied Tax Appeals, present Tax Appeal qua question No. (A) deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Question No. (A) is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Question No. (A) is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Now, so far as the proposed question No. (B) is concerned, it appears that while passing the impugned judgment and order the learned Tribunal has remitted the matter to the learned Assessing Officer considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1999) 106 Taxman 601 (SC). Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when initially the assessee treated the amount as loan which was subsequently converted into preferential share and therefore, it was never treated as stock in trade and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (Supra) shall not be applicable. On the other hand Shri Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee has disputed the above. 6. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for respective parties and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A), we are of the opinion that whether in the facts and circumstances, the question whether learned Tribunal is justified in straightway relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (Supra), deserves consideration. Therefore, with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for respective parties, the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal to consider the aforesaid question No. (B) afresh and the learned Tribunal may also consider whether the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (Supra) shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand after giving specific finding whether the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (Supra) shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and thereafter the learned Tribunal to consider the matter whether the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Assessing Officer or not and/or decide question No. (B) afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and after giving opportunity to both the parties. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Tax Appeal qua question No. (A) stands dismissed. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Tax Appeal qua question No. (A) stands dismissed. Proposed question No. (A) referred to hereinabove is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to consider question No. (B) afresh as observed hereinabove. Present Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly to the aforesaid extent.