Remand orders must be reasoned and targeted; where hearing was denied, the matter should return to the original appellate authority.

A remand order must record specific reasons showing why further enquiry or verification is necessary and why the matter cannot be decided on the existing record. Where the complaint is denial of hearing before the appellate authority, the proper course is to remit the matter to that authority so the defect can be cured there. The HC held that a bare reference to further enquiry, without identifying any material requiring it, was insufficient. The remand to the assessing officer was therefore unsustainable, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the first appellate authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the assessing officer instead of remanding it to the appellate authority, and whether a remand order can be sustained without recording specific reasons showing the necessity for further enquiry or verification.

Analysis: A remand is justified only where fresh material is required, a relevant issue has not been addressed, or the higher forum records a clear inability to decide the matter on the existing record. The Tribunal merely referred to the need for further enquiry and verification without identifying any specific material or document requiring such exercise. The order did not show why the matter could not be decided on the record already available. Where the grievance was denial of hearing before the appellate authority, the proper course was to send the matter back to that very authority so that the alleged defect in opportunity could be cured at that stage. A remand order must be speaking, precise, and supported by reasons.

Conclusion: The remand to the assessing officer was not sustainable, and the Tribunal's order was liable to be set aside. The matter had to go back to the appellate authority for fresh decision after granting opportunity to both sides.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the dispute was restored to the first appellate authority for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand must be supported by specific reasons showing necessity for further enquiry, and where the complaint is denial of hearing before a particular authority, the matter should ordinarily be remitted to that authority for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.

---