Judicial discretion in remand must follow reasonableness; remand invalid where it arbitrarily reopens already examined evidence.

The article examines the legality of an appellate remand under section 33(4) and holds that the statutory power to remand is a judicial discretion that must be exercised according to reason and justice. It finds the Tribunal's direction to reopen the same estate accounts and cash-balance issues already examined by the assessing officer to be an arbitrary re opening and therefore beyond lawful discretion. The remand is characterised as an improper exercise of power and declared illegal and invalid, with the substantive question resolved in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of remand made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act was legal and valid in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal does possess a wide statutory discretion under section 33(4) to pass orders it thinks fit, including remanding matters for further investigation. However, that discretion is judicial and must be exercised according to legal principles of reason and justice, not arbitrarily. In the present case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had already examined extensive estate account books and other material bearing on whether the husband had the requisite cash balances; the Tribunal's direction to remand for further investigation on the same point amounted to an unjustified re-opening of matters already examined. Applying the legal standard that discretionary powers must be exercised within limits of legality and not capriciously, the Tribunal's remand was not a proper exercise of its discretion.

Conclusion: The order of remand by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is illegal and invalid; the question is answered in favour of the assessee.

---