Somnath Iyer, J.
1. The question of law which the Appellate Tribunal was directed by this court to refer under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, reads :
'Whether the order of the Tribunal discloses that it had applied its mind to the facts of the case and come to its own independent conclusion ?'
2. Two contentions were raised by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. One was that the yield of the groundnut kernel was wrongly estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at 72.5 per cent. as against the disclosed yield of 70 per cent. The other was that the yield of groundnut oil was wrongly estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at 42 per cent. whereas the disclosed yield was 35 per cent. according to the assessee. In the application presented for a reference under section 66(1) the question which the assessee wanted to be referred to this court was whether the order of the Tribunal was in accordance with law.
3. During the course of the argument, it was urged on behalf of the assessee before this court that the order of the Appellate Tribunal fell within the enunciation made by the Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax, in which the Supreme Court expressed the view that, since the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact-finding Tribunal, its conclusions should be reached after due consideration of the evidence and that its order should disclose the question which arose for determination, the evidence available on record and the findings reached on such evidence.
4. Mr. Srinivasan for the assessee contends that the Appellate Tribunal merely states that the estimate of the yield of the kernel made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was correct and that that was so even in regard to the yield of oil and that the order of the Tribunal is, therefore, defective and does not conform to the standards prescribed by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fact that in the case of the yield of oil, the Appellate Tribunal did allude to some comparable cases stated by the assessee. It is urged that there was a mechanical adoption of the conclusion reached by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without the bestowal of though to any material on record. The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that we should say that the Tribunal did not apply its own mind to the facts of the case and it did not reach its own independent conclusion on any of the question arising in the appeal and that, therefore, the order of the Appellate Tribunal invites the criticism that it is not in accordance with law.
5. We are of the opinion that this submission made by Mr. Srinivasan is unanswerable. The Tribunal did not, as required by law, of which there was an elucidation by the Supreme Court, discuss the evidence upon which the assessee depended, or refer to the material upon which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied for reaching the conclusion that the yield of the kernel was 72.5 per cent. Likewise, although the Tribunal did say that some comparable cases supported the conclusion reached by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the yield of oil, it did not discuss the evidence on which the assessee depended for supporting the disclosed yield of 35 per cent. The order of the Tribunal does not disclose that were the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee before it and what were the reasons for not accepting those argument and why and for what reason the Tribunal agreed with the conclusions reached by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
6. It is clear from Omar Salary Mohamed Sait's case, the order made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal should be a sufficiently comprehensive and self-contained order from which it shooed be possible to ascertain all the relevant facts and the questions arising in the appeal. The order should similarly disclose what were the contentions urged before the Tribunal and should state why and for what reason those contentions were repealed. Judged by these standards what becomes clear is that it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal applied its own mind to the facts of the case or that it reached any independent conclusion on the matters which it had to decide. On the contrary, what is perfectly manifest is that there was an unreasonable adoption of the conclusion reached by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and nothing more.
7. Our answer to the question which is before us should, therefore, be in favour of the assessee, and our answer is that the order of the Tribunal discloses that it did not apply it own mind to the facts of the case and that it did not come to its own independent conclusion, and that, therefore, the appeal which was before the Tribunal has not yet been decided in the accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
8. Question answered in favour of the assessee.