JUDGMENT 1. Though this matter was listed for orders, on consent of Mr. A.P. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the assessee, and Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel for the Revenue, it is finally heard. 2. The present appeal preferred under Section of the Income-tax Act, 1961, involves the substantial questions of law which is formulated as under: (i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in expressing the opinion that the three grounds raised in appeal are general in nature and do not require any finding? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal can be regarded to be perverse in the absence of any perceivable reasons in the order itself? 3. On the basis of the aforesaid substantial questions, the appeal is admitted and taken up for final hearing. 4. Mr. A.P. Shrivastava, learned Counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has decided the appeal in a cryptic manner and in fact not decided the legal issues which go to the root of jurisdiction by stating that the grounds being general in nature did not require any finding, despite the fact that they are germane to the controversy. It is his further submission that the Tribunal has also not expressed the opinion that the delineation of the said grounds were not required as there could not have been change in the result of appeal. Additionally contends Mr. Shrivastava that it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to deal with every factual facet being the last fact finding authority. 5. Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar and the question framed, we have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. On a keen scrutiny of the same, it is noticeable that the Tribunal has narrated the facts and thereafter referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and eventually came to hold that the assessee had represented the arguments before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which is part of the appellate order and, therefore, did not require to be reproduced in the order. After so stating, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and came to hold that other grounds were not necessary to be dealt with. 7. After so stating, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and came to hold that other grounds were not necessary to be dealt with. 7. In our considered opinion, the order passed really does not contain any reason which is the heart and soul of an order and hence cannot be given the stamp of approval. That apart, the Tribunal would have been well advised to deal with the grounds before opining that they are general in nature. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T. SS(A) No. 11/JAB/05, decided on October 16, 2007, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the same afresh regard being had to the merits and ascribing the cogent and germane reasons. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.