Remand is unwarranted when the record already contains decisive facts and the Tribunal must decide the matter on merits.

A remand is unwarranted where the record already contains the material necessary for decision and the assessing officer has recorded clear findings on the very facts forming the basis of remand. The High Court found that the purchases were debited in the names of the ex-U.P. principals on the dates of purchase, the goods were promptly dispatched to them, and no written orders on their behalf were shown. Since these issues had already been examined on the available evidence, the Tribunal should have decided the dispute on merits instead of sending the matter back. The remand order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter for re-examination of the assessee's purchasing agency status when the assessing officer had already recorded findings on the relevant facts.

Analysis: The issue was whether remand was necessary for further investigation or whether the existing record already contained the material needed for decision. The assessing officer had found that the purchases were debited in the names of the ex-U.P. principals on the dates of purchase, the goods were dispatched to them promptly, and no written orders on their behalf were shown. Since the relevant evidence was already on record and the points forming the basis of remand had been examined with clear findings, there was no justification for sending the matter back. The Tribunal ought to have decided the dispute itself on the available material.

Conclusion: The remand order was unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the Tribunal was directed to decide the case on merits without remanding it to the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand is unwarranted where the record already contains the material necessary for decision and the issues relied upon for remand have been conclusively found by the assessing authority.

---