- (1.) HEARD Shri D.D. Chopra learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Aftab Ahmad holding brief of Shri M.A. Siddqui learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) WHILE assailing the impugned order dated 20.7.1994 it has been submitted by appellant's counsel that impugned order is non -speaking one and does not assign reason. Controversy relates to assessment year 1984 -85. The ground taken by the appellant before the tribunal was with regard to dis -allowance of Rs. 6,13,978/ - being bonus ex -gratia to 20 per cent as per resolution. A perusal of the impugned Judgment of Tribunal shows that the Tribunal recorded a finding that the department has filed the appeal to keep the issue alive and otherwise the question cropped up for adjudication has been settled by the Tribunal's four judgments of earlier years. While passing the impugned order the tribunal has not discussed with regard to identical features which necessitated to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal should have discuss the dispute in brief as well as proposition of law recorded in its earlier Judgment and thereafter similarity between two cases. After discussing the entire controversy may be in brief and recording the similarity between the controversy involved of the year 1984 -85 its earlier judgment the tribunal could have dismiss the appeal. The tribunal is a quasi judicial authority and orders passed by it must be reasoned order depicting the controversy as well as proposition of law involved therein. Since, the impugned order seems to be unreasoned order and does not disclose the similarity between the present case as well as the earlier case which was adjudicated by Tribunal, the reference deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, reference is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.1994 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Allahabad is set aside. The controversy is remitted back to the tribunal to decide a fresh keeping in view the observation made hereinabove.;