Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the assessment proceedings for local inspection instead of deciding the second appeal on the available material.
Analysis: The revisionist challenged the remand on the ground that the relevant facts regarding flood damage and seepage had already been established by documents and were not in dispute. The Court found that the alleged local inspection could not meaningfully determine the extent of damage after a long lapse of time, and that the assessing authority and Tribunal had sufficient material on record to decide the controversy. A remand after several years was held to be unnecessary and likely to prolong finalisation of the assessment without serving any useful purpose.
Conclusion: The remand order was unjustified and was set aside; the Tribunal was directed to decide the second appeal afresh on the basis of the existing record.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the impugned remand was quashed, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the material already available.
Ratio Decidendi: A remand should not be ordered where the controversy can be decided on the existing record and the proposed further inquiry would be futile because of the lapse of time and the sufficiency of available material.