1. Heard. This is an appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1985-86. The basic issue was whether there was any manufacturing or processing involved in the conversion of carcass into commercially marketable meat. The Assessing Officer was of the view that there was no commercially different commodity and, Therefore, the claim that manufacturing/processing was involved was not tenable. A great emphasis was laid on the report of the Valuation Officer who had inspected the business premises pursuant to the direction given by the appellate authority. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the CIT(A)) reversed the findings. It was observed that there was no doubt that the assessed was engaged in processing the goods and was Therefore entitled to claim investment allowance.
2. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. After noticing the stands of the parties and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Tribunal disposed of the matter with the following observations :
"In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue deserves to be allowed. It is seen that the assessed has not been able to establish that any processing activity takes place in the said business. Merely the activity of debunking the meat and selling it as keema, etc., does not entitle the assessed to claim the benefits under this section."
3. To say the least, the order is non-speaking and the reasons have not been indicated to support the conclusions arrived at. In the aforesaid background, it would be appropriate to direct the Tribunal to re-hear the matter as reasons have not been indicated by the Tribunal to justify its conclusions. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
4. Appeal stands disposed of.
