JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these Tax Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "ITAT") and with respect to the same assessee but for different Assessment Years, both these Tax Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No. 2238/Ahd/2007 for AY 2004-05 and ITA No. 2601/Ahd/2008 for AY 2000-01, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following common proposed question of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in remitting back the issue of working-out deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act while giving a finding that the fact that the loan was assigned transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material?" 2.1 That the assessee filed the return of income for AY 2004-05 and 2000-01 claiming/working out the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "IT Act"). It appears that the assessee transferred the loan portfolio to one HDFC. From the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, it appears that the Assessing Officer considering explanation (h) to Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, partly allowed the claim to the extent of loan or advance where the terms under which the monies were loaned or advanced provided for repayment along with the interest thereof beyond the period of 5 years and therefore, partly allowed the claim of the assessee of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment orders and with respect to the working out deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred Tax Appeals before the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances with respect to deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. The matters were carried further to the learned ITAT. From the impugned orders passed by the learned ITAT it appears that the learned ITAT considered the issue whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act despite the fact that the loan was assigned/transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction. The matters were carried further to the learned ITAT. From the impugned orders passed by the learned ITAT it appears that the learned ITAT considered the issue whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act despite the fact that the loan was assigned/transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction. Learned ITAT after holding that while working out deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act it is immaterial whether the loan portfolio was transferred/assigned before 5 years from the date of sanction or not. However, thereafter, the learned ITAT has remitted the matters to the learned Assessing Officer by specifically observing and directing as under: "We remit this issue to the file of the AO with a direction that he will verify the details of finance accounts, and if there is no change in the character of accounts i.e. their life span is more than five years, which continues even after assignment, then, interest income from those accounts up to the date of assignment would qualify for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. These directions are subject to fulfillment of other conditions which are not disputed before us. The ld. AO shall also ensure that double deduction should not be made i.e. by assessee as well as by HDFC." 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following common proposed question of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in remitting back the issue of working-out deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act while giving a finding that the fact that the loan was assigned transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material?" 3. Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that as such the learned ITAT has misdirected itself in deciding the issue before it. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer did not disallow the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act on the ground that the loan portfolio was assigned within a period of 5 years from the date of its sanction. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer did not disallow the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act on the ground that the loan portfolio was assigned within a period of 5 years from the date of its sanction. It is submitted that as such the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act partly to the extent it was found that the loan or advance where the terms under which monies were loaned or advanced provided for repayment along with interest thereof during a period within the period of 5 years, after considering explanation (h) to Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as such the learned ITAT ought not to have remanded the matters to the learned Assessing Officer with the direction as recorded hereinabove. 4. We have heard Shri Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. At the outset it is required to be noted that even the question of law proposed by the Revenue is whether the learned ITAT is justified in remitting back the issue of working out deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the IT Act while giving the finding that the fact that the loan/advance was sanctioned before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material. No other question of law is proposed. 5. Having heard Shri Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant on the question of law which is proposed and considering the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT and considering the provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error in holding that while working out the deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the IT Act, the loan portfolio/loan was assigned/transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned ITAT on the aforesaid proposed question of law. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned ITAT on the aforesaid proposed question of law. 5.1 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Assessing Officer as such disallowed the working out of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act partly with respect to the period within 5 years from the date of sanction and therefore, the learned ITAT ought not to have remitted the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such on the aforesaid no question of law is proposed. Even otherwise the direction issued by the learned ITAT is very clear. The learned ITAT while remanding the matters to the learned Assessing Officer has remitted the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with the specific directions that he will verify the details of the finance accounts and if there is no change in the character of accounts i.e. their life span is more than 5 years, which continues even after assignment, then, the interest income from those accounts after the date of sanction would qualify for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act in the hands of the assessee. 5.2 Under the circumstances, the direction issued by the learned ITAT is very clear and seems to be absolutely in consonance with the explanation (h) to Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, when the entire issue is at large and the direction issued by the learned ITAT is very clear while remitting the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer, we see no reason to interfere with the same. It goes without saying that the learned Assessing Officer after giving an opportunity to the assessee shall consider the entire issue with respect to the working out deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) more particularly explanation (h) to Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the present Tax Appeals stand dismissed.