Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed his return under the Income-tax Act for the year 1961-62 showing a net loss of Rs. 5.306. In the accounting year the petitioner had taken up two contract works: (1) the construction of a lock and bridge at Trikkunnapuzha and (2) the execution of a bund at Chakkarachal. For the former item of work the Income-tax Officer estimated the income on the basis of his calculation of the net profit at 121/2 per cent of the gross receipt by the petitioner and on the second item the Income-tax Officer did not accept the return of loss submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand he determined the net profit at 10% of the gross receipt. Against this order of assessment the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. The appellate authority accepted the contention of the petitioner with regard to the Chakkarachal work to the extent of holding that he should be deemed to have made no profit out of this work, but that the loss returned by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Ext. P-2 is a copy of that order. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Ext. P-3 is a copy of the appeal memorandum. In Ext. P3 he contended that the determination of the gross profit in respect of the contract with the Public Works Department at 121/2% of the gross receipt was arbitrary. He also contended that on the materials placed before the department, the loss returned in respect of the Chakkarachal work should have been accepted. The second respondent gave notice of the hearing of the appeal to the auditors appearing for the petitioner. There was no appearance and Ext. P-4 order was passed by the Tribunal negativing the contentions of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner questions Ext. P-4 order on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has not considered the third ground raised by him in his appeal memorandum, namely the question whether he has sustained loss in respect of the Chakkarachal work. Petitioner's contention was that although there was no appearance for the petitioner on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal was bound to consider the appeal on its merits and should have entered findings on all the points raised by him in the appeal memorandum. Petitioner's contention was that although there was no appearance for the petitioner on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal was bound to consider the appeal on its merits and should have entered findings on all the points raised by him in the appeal memorandum. The petitioner's counsel relied upon the ruling in Chenniappa Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (53 I. T. R.323, 327). There the Madras High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on the ground that there was no appearance for the assessee, when the appeal was called on for hearing, but that it must decide the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the only question for consideration in this case is whether there was a disposal of the appeal on merits. 3. On reading Ext. P-4 order I am satisfied that that was a decision on the merits and not a disposal for default of appearance. In Ext. P-4 it is stated: "After going through the various orders, grounds of appeal and after hearing the Departmental Representative, we consider, no interference is called for with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner". It then proceeds to consider the contention of the petitioner raised in the second ground. I think there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that ground No. 3 raised in the appeal memorandum was not considered by the Appellate Tribunal. It is not necessary that the tribunal should enter into an elaborate discussion of each of the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. The only question for me to consider is whether there was a disposal of the appeal on merits. From Ext. P-4 order it appears to me that the Appellate Tribunal perused the grounds and considered the questions raised in the grounds and after hearing the arguments of the representative of the department came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the contention contained in ground No. 3 also. There is no merit in this petition and I dismiss it. No costs. Dismissed.