Reasoned speaking order requirement: a cursory appellate disposal was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

A quasi-judicial appellate authority must deal separately with each substantial ground and record a reasoned speaking order; a cursory disposal without showing application of mind cannot stand. Because the first appellate order summarily rejected the assessee's contentions without proper consideration, it was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order passed by the first appellate authority was liable to be set aside for being cursory and non-speaking, and whether the matter should be restored for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Analysis: The appellate order was found to have disposed of the assessee's grounds in a summary manner without separately dealing with the issues raised. A quasi-judicial authority is required to apply its mind to each substantial contention and record a proper reasoned order so that justice is not only done but seen to be done. Since the order under challenge did not disclose such application of mind or proper consideration of the several grounds, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The order of the first appellate authority was set aside and the appeal was restored to be decided afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial appellate authority must pass a reasoned speaking order dealing separately with the grounds raised, and a cursory order lacking such consideration is liable to be set aside.

---