JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— This appeal is by the Revenue. The respondent-assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1994-95. The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer considering the assessee's claim under the head, expenditure in regard to purchase of map litho paper from a concern known as Shri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta, disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 8,76,600 on the ground that the representative of the assessee one Mr. K.R. Pradeep who appeared, before the Assessing Officer on February 28, 1997, did not produce any evidence and that K.R. Pradeep in writing admitted that he is not in a position to produce any evidence in support of the claim for purchasing paper from Shri Krishna Paper Concern. Accordingly, the same was disallowed. Aggrieved, by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not only in regard to the disallowance of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 8,67,600 for the purchase of papers but also on other grounds. The appeal filed by the assessee came to be allowed-in-part and, however, the expenditure disallowed for the purchase of paper was confirmed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal filed by the assessee in respect of various assessment years were taken up together by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. For the previous assessment year, the Tribunal considering the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purchase of map litho paper by the same Shri Krishna Paper Concern was allowed based on the various documents produced by the assessee. While dealing with the assessment year 1994-95 without assigning any reason in paragraph 15 of its order has stated that in view of the deletion of disallowance for the assessment year 1993-94 as per their order in the previous paragraph, the deletion was allowed for the assessment year 1994-95. This order is called in question in this appeal raising the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the purchases made by the assessee of Rs. This order is called in question in this appeal raising the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the purchases made by the assessee of Rs. 20,52,000 from Sri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta, which was found to be bogus concerns could be treated as genuine only on the ground that an invoice was raised and cheque details given which did not establish the existence of the seller or the delivery of goods and consequently recorded a perverse finding. (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the goods were received by the assessee and the same was used in the business remained undisputed when it was the specific case of the Revenue that such a transaction did not take place and the assessee had not produced any proof to establish the transaction and consequently recorded a perverse finding. 2. Though two substantial questions of law are framed by the Revenue at the time of hearing, we have noticed that the questions of law framed by the Revenue has to be reframed. Learned Counsel appearing for both the parties have no objection to reframe the questions of law. Accordingly, we have framed as hereunder: (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting relief allowing the expenditure of Rs. 8,67,600 based on the reasonings assigned by it while considering the similar expenditure for the previous assessment year 1993-94? 3. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 4. The Tribunal while considering the expenditure claimed by the assessee for the previous assessment year 1993-94 in paragraph 12 of its order by giving detailed reasonings and considering various documents produced by the assessee has granted relief to the assessee. However, while considering the expenditure for the assessment year 1994-95 for the purchase of paper from Shri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta, without any discussion in regard to the documents produced by the assessee for the purchase of papers for a sum of Rs. 8,67,600, has allowed the appeal of the assessee only on the ground that for the reasons stated in its order in paragraph 12.5 for the assessment year 1993-94, it has granted relief to the assessee. By reading paragraph 15 of its order, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in allowing the appeal of the assessee. By reading paragraph 15 of its order, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in allowing the appeal of the assessee. If the Tribunal, while considering the appeal of the assessee for the year 1933-94 considering the relevant documents produced by the assessee for the said relevant assessment period had granted relief, the same cannot be a ground for the Tribunal to give relief to the assessee on the same ground. If the Tribunal was of the opinion that similar documents was produced by the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 for purchase of papers from the same concern, we could have appreciated the order passed by the Tribunal. But without assigning any reason just because relief is granted to the assessee for the previous assessment year, the same cannot be acceptable to us. 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has produced relevant records before the appellate authority to show that it has really purchased the papers from Shri Krishna Paper Concern. But this statement is contrary to the order of assessment wherein it is mentioned that the representative of the assessee in writing has submitted that he has no evidence to show that the paper is purchased by the assessee from Shri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta. Therefore, even if the assessee has produced any document to show that it has purchased the papers worth Rs. 8,67,600 for the assessment year 1994-95, it is for the Assessing Officer to reconsider the case of the assessee. Since such an opportunity was not given for the Assessing Officer to consider these document, since the assessee did not produce these documents for the reasons best known to it, we have no other option that to answer the question in favour of the Revenue and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue by giving opportunity for the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by all the authorities are set aside in regard to the disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 8,67,600 on account of the paper purchased by it from Shri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta, and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is entitled to produce the documents, if any, in possession of it in proof of the same. 8,67,600 on account of the paper purchased by it from Shri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta, and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is entitled to produce the documents, if any, in possession of it in proof of the same. If such documents are produced, the Assessing Officer shall consider the same on the merits and in accordance with law.