Tribunal remand power must be exercised judicially; a fresh inquiry was unwarranted where the material was already on record.

The Tribunal's power under section 33(4) to pass such orders as it thinks fit is broad, but it must be exercised judicially and on legal principles, not arbitrarily. A remand for further inquiry and additional evidence was unjustified where the same point, namely the likelihood of the assessee's husband having sufficient cash balance, had already been examined on the existing estate account books and other evidence. As the relevant material was already on record, there was no legal warrant for sending the matter back for re-investigation. The remand order was therefore held to be invalid, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in remanding the case to the Income-tax Officer for further investigation and additional evidence under section 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal's power under section 33(4) to pass such orders as it thinks fit is wide, but it is a judicial discretion that must be exercised according to legal principles and not in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The material relied upon for remand related to the likelihood that the assessee's husband had sufficient cash balance, but that very question had already been examined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the estate account books and other evidence. Since the relevant material was already on record, there was no legal warrant for a further remand on the same point.

Conclusion: The remand order was not legally valid, and the answer to the reference was in favour of the assessee and against the Income-tax Department.

---