Reasoned remand orders are mandatory when a final fact-finding authority sends assessment issues back for fresh adjudication.

A final fact-finding authority must record reasons and apply its mind before remanding a matter for fresh adjudication; a bare assertion that the record was not properly examined is not a valid basis for remand. The Tribunal's order was also unnecessary because the grievance related only to the assessee's challenge to turnover fixation, with no revenue appeal pending. On that footing, the cryptic remand order was held unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order remanding the assessment matters for fresh adjudication without recording reasons was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority under the statute, was required to apply its mind to the controversy and support its conclusion with reasons. A bare statement that the facts had not been properly examined, without explaining the basis for that conclusion or why remand was necessary, did not constitute a valid adjudicatory order. The remand was also found unnecessary because the grievance before the Tribunal arose only from the assessee's challenge to the turnover fixation, and no appeal had been filed by the revenue. The order was therefore treated as a cryptic disposal unsupported by findings.

Conclusion: The remand order was unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A final fact-finding authority must pass a reasoned order; findings or remand directions recorded without reasons are legally ineffective.

---