Natural justice requires consideration of material submissions; omission to address a binding-precedent plea warrants fresh adjudication.

Failure to deal with a material submission recorded in the order, especially one based on an earlier binding precedent, amounts to breach of natural justice. Where the Tribunal notes the assessee's contention but does not examine it while rejecting the appeal, the disposal is vulnerable because the issue is not decided on merits and the party is denied fair consideration of a relevant legal plea. The proper course is to set aside the order and restore the matter for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's failure to consider the assessee's submission based on an earlier binding decision, though recorded in the order, vitiated the disposal and required the matter to be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The assessee had raised a specific contention that its exempt dividend income and the availability of large interest-free reserves attracted the presumption recognised in the earlier decision. That contention was noted in the Tribunal's order, but no consideration was given to it while rejecting the appeal. A disposal that records a material submission yet omits to deal with it leaves the order vulnerable, because the affected issue is not answered on merits and the party is denied fair consideration of a relevant contention.

Conclusion: The omission amounted to a breach of principles of natural justice. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the Tribunal's order was set aside with the matter restored for fresh disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider and decide a material submission recorded in the order, particularly one founded on a potentially binding precedent, constitutes a violation of natural justice and justifies setting aside the order for fresh decision.

---