Failure to consider a substantive taxability ground justified remand for fresh Tribunal adjudication

The Tribunal's order was set aside because it failed to consider a substantive ground specifically raised in second appeal, namely that the transaction was not taxable in Uttar Pradesh as the lease deed was executed outside the State. The High Court held that this contention required a merits-based decision, while the remaining issues involved factual inquiries better left to the Tribunal as final fact-finding authority. The proper course was therefore to remit the appeals for fresh adjudication, with the parties free to press all relevant legal contentions before the Tribunal. The revisions succeeded only to the extent of securing remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order was liable to be set aside for not considering the material grounds raised in the second appeal and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The revisions challenged a common Tribunal order in which one substantive ground, namely the plea that the transaction was not taxable in Uttar Pradesh because the lease deed was executed outside the State, had been specifically raised but not considered. The Court noted that the Tribunal had not dealt with the contention on merits as required, while the remaining questions involved factual inquiries best left to the Tribunal as the final fact-finding authority. In these circumstances, the proper course was to set aside the Tribunal's order and remit the appeals for fresh adjudication, leaving the parties free to urge the relevant legal contentions before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, in favour of the assessee on the procedural issue.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only to the extent of securing remand, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the second appeals afresh in accordance with law.

---