Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the 1961 Act"), the appellant has prayed for determination of the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the order of the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is sustainable in the eyes of law when no speaking order has been passed on the issues involved ? (ii) Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue of addition of Rs. 45,000 only and only on the ground that the Sales Tax Department has imposed some penalty, when necessary explanation has been given by the assessee ? Whether the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act can pass an order, relying on the judgment of another department (Sales Tax Department), without any independent application of mind, to make an addition in the total income ? (iii) Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified to uphold any addition in the total income, only and only on the ground that another department of the State Government, has taken an action under the Sales Tax Act, when it was explained that no penalty has been imposed upon the appellant-firm and no such demand of penalty has been paid by it ?" 2. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant (hereinafter described as "the assessee"), is engaged in the business of manufacturing oil. Its business premises were inspected by the sales tax authorities on May 7, 1992. Thereafter, proceedings for imposition of penalty under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act , 1973 (for short "the 1973 Act"), were initiated on account of the alleged excess stock of sarson oil valued at Rs. 1,80,000. By an order passed under Section 36(6) of the 1973 Act, a penalty of Rs. 45,000 was imposed by the competent authority. On appeal, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hisar, reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 11,250. He held that there was an excess stock of only 38 quintals for which a penalty of Rs. 11,250 was justified. The assessee did not challenge the appellate order passed under the 1973 Act apparently because a very small amount was involved. 3. 45,000 to Rs. 11,250. He held that there was an excess stock of only 38 quintals for which a penalty of Rs. 11,250 was justified. The assessee did not challenge the appellate order passed under the 1973 Act apparently because a very small amount was involved. 3. For the assessment year 1993-94, the Income-tax Officer, Ward I, Bhiwani (hereinafter described as "the Assessing Officer"), framed the assessment under Section 143(1) of the 1961 Act. Later on, he initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act and made addition of Rs. 1,59,150 by placing reliance on the orders passed under the 1973 Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. The appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak. He deleted the addition of Rs. 51,000 but sustained another addition of Rs. 1,07,250 in relation to the penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Department under Section 37(6) of the 1973 Act. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, "SMC-II", New Delhi (for short, "the Tribunal"), dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4. We have heard Shri K. L. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and perused the record. The main ground on which the assessee has challenged the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is that reassessment could not have been made solely on the basis of the orders passed under the 1973 Act. The assessee has challenged the Tribunals order on the ground that it does not fulfil the requirement of a speaking order. 5. In our opinion, it is not necessary to finally adjudicate on the various questions of which determination has been sought by the assessee because we are convinced that order dated March 18, 2004, passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, namely, that every judicial and quasi-judicial authority/body must record reasons in support of its conclusion indicating the application of mind by the presiding officer to the points raised by the aggrieved party. A reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that after enumerating the grounds taken in the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee and the arguments of learned counsel, the learned Judicial Member of the Tribunal dismissed the assessees appeal without assigning any reason whatsoever. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly stated that the order passed by the Tribunal is totally laconic and he is not in a position to defend the same. 6. For the reason mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. Order dated March 18, 2004, passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is remanded to the Tribunal for its fresh adjudication. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on February 15, 2005. It is expected that the Tribunal will decide the matter afresh within next three months.