JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. M. Sapre J. This is appeal filed by Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under section 260A of Income-tax Act against order dated April 30, 2003, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ) in I. T. A. No. 33/Ind./97. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting partial deduction in respect of certain deductions without discussing and specifying in respect of each head of source of such deduction? 2. Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting deduction in respect of Rs. 5,60,743 for year in question without justifying and deciding nature of its receipt in hands of assessee? 3. Whether assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 5,50,211.75 being amount received by way of interest on FDR and sum of Rs. 110.66 being interest received (Narmada Nagar) [see page 67 of paper book] in view of law laid down by this court in case of CIT v. Purushottamdas Dhoribhai and Co. [1997] 226 ITR 579 which in clear terms holds that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction on such receipt? Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for Revenue/appellant and Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri Purohit, learned counsel for assessee/ respondent. dispute in this appeal relates to assessment year 1993-94. This is how Tribunal dealt with whole issue in para 8.2 of impugned order while partly allowing appeal filed by Revenue being I. T. A. No. 33/Ind./97 on grounds Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in paras 7 and 8: 8.2 We have considered arguments advanced by parties in view of materials available on record and have gone through order impugned. learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has accepted claim of assessee agreeing with submissions made on behalf of assessee that there was no basis to make separate addition of this amount as receipts are out of contract expenses increased and not from other business and that amount had already been included in receipts of assessee forming part of contract receipts. We do not agree with view of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) so far income of Rs. 70,784.10 from photocopy charges and Rs. 74,266.83 from other income as per detail given at page 53 of paper book. reason being that income from photocopy charges cannot be termed as income from business of assessee and details of other income amounting to Rs. 74,266.83 have not been furnished by assessee, hence it cannot be accepted as income from business of assessee. So far other amounts are concerned; we do not find reason to interfere with order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We thus restore addition of Rs. 1,45,050.93 out of Rs. 7,05,793. Ground No. 2 is thus partly allowed. Though we have heard lengthy arguments on behalf of both parties on questions of law framed when learned counsel appearing for parties cited plethora of cases in support of their respective contentions in CIT v. Purushottamdas Dhoribhai and Co. [1997] 226 ITR 579 (MP), Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC), Snam Progetti S. P. A. v. Addl. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 70 (Delhi), CIT v. Tirupati Woollen Mills Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 252 (Cal), CIT v. Madras Refineries Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 354 (Mad) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC), we are of considered view that Tribunal did not discuss any issue on merits except to record eventual finding partly in favour of Revenue and partly against them. Tribunal did not even refer to any of case law governing field and in very cursory and casual manner disposed of appeal filed by Revenue, referred to above. We cannot countenance such casual approach resorted to by Tribunal while deciding appeal. In first place, there is no discussion as to why Tribunal does not consider it proper not to interfere with order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is not even clear as to what was claim of assessee and on what ground Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed and on what ground Revenue challenged and why those challenges have no substance. We are, therefore, unable to know even facts in relation to those deductions claimed by assessee and why and on what basis they were upheld by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in favour of assessee and later by Tribunal. To again repeat words of Tribunal while upholding order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it was observed that: So far other amounts are concerned; we do not find reason to interfere with order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We thus restore addition of Rs. 1,45,050.93 out of Rs. 7,05,793. Ground No. 2 is thus partly allowed. With respect, we cannot concur with this type of disposal of appeal by Tribunal. Time and again, Supreme Court has cautioned that Tribunal being last court of facts it must deal with all issues in detail with reference to facts and decided cases of Supreme Court and High Courts. Though, it is rightly said that brevity is virtue , but, in our opinion, it cannot be to extent followed by Tribunal while disposing of appeal. In appeal filed under section 260A of Act, we cannot embark upon facts and law applicable to facts as fact finding court of appeal. We can go into legal position once factual finding is returned by Tribunal. We can also examine legal finding recorded by Tribunal on facts found proved. But when there is neither discussion, nor finding much less in context of decided cases in impugned order, we cannot be called upon to go into all facts and law de novo like Tribunal. It was duty of Tribunal to have taken up case relating to each deduction claimed by assessee and then looking to its nature and claim of assessee, it should have decided as to whether it is capable of being granted in favour of assessee and if so, why and on what basis? Similarly, in event of same being decided against assessee, reasoning for rejection duly supported with decided judicial verdict on issue should have been given. It is not done in this case and hence, interference is called for. We are, therefore, of view that case for remand to Tribunal is made out section 260A of Act empowers us to remand case to Tribunal, if we find that case to that effect is called for. In this case, it is called for. Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, while answering question No. 1 in favour of appellant, we allow appeal and while setting aside of order impugned, remand case to Tribunal for again deciding appeal filed by Revenue in I. T. A. No. 33/Ind./97 on merits, keeping in view observations made supra. Let this be done within six months from date of appearance of parties before Tribunal on May 8, 2006. No costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION (I) (P) LTD.