Revisional remand is valid where an appellate authority fails to examine records and decide the issues properly.

A revisional authority may set aside an appellate order and remand the matter for fresh consideration where the first appellate authority has failed to examine the assessing officer's records, consider the material on record, or adjudicate the parties' contentions in accordance with law. The HC upheld the remand because the appellate order was unsustainable on that basis, and it found no illegality or irregularity in directing fresh orders on all issues. Any remarks made in the remand order were expressly limited so as not to influence the first appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the order of the first appellate authority and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The first appellate authority had not examined the records of the assessing officer, had not considered the material on record and had not dealt with the contentions of the parties in accordance with law. In those circumstances, the revisional authority was justified in holding that the appellate order could not be sustained and in directing remand for fresh orders on all issues. Any observations made while remanding were expressly stated not to influence the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and no illegality or irregularity was found in the revisional authority's decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority may validly set aside and remand an appellate order for fresh consideration where the appellate authority has failed to examine the record and material and has not adjudicated the issues properly.

---