BABULAL PATODI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter was listed for orders, on consent of Mr. A.P. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the assessee, and Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel for the Revenue, it is finally heard.

(2.) THE present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961, involves the substantial questions of law which is formulated as under:

(3.) MR . A.P. Shrivastava, learned Counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has decided the appeal in a cryptic manner and in fact not decided the legal issues which go to the root of jurisdiction by stating that the grounds being general in nature did not require any finding, despite the fact that they are germane to the controversy. It is his further submission that the Tribunal has also not expressed the opinion that the delineation of the said grounds were not required as there could not have been change in the result of appeal. Additionally contends Mr. Shrivastava that it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to deal with every factual facet being the last fact finding authority.