2020 (9) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Income Tax

Head Note / Extract:
Cash found and seized in search proceedings - non-availability of evidence in respect of the claim at the time of search and availability of such proof only subsequent to the search especially when the assessee had not mentioned about the availability of evidence when statement was recorded under Section 132(4) - Tribunal setting aside the orders of the lower authorities with a direction to AO to do the same assessment afresh - Whether Appellate Tribunal is correct in entertaining the afterthought submission of the assessee that the excess cash found at the time of search relates to sales and the bills were pending for updation at the time of search? - HELD THAT:- Substantial Questions of law need not be answered in the instant case as they have become academic. It is true that a Superior Tribunal or a Court cannot mechanically remand matters for fresh consideration or de novo adjudication unless and until it finds a justifiable need for such a remand. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has passed a given effect to order under Section 143(3) r/w. Section 254 of the Act dated 31.12.2018 and such order is adverse to the assessee as the assessee was not able to establish anything and therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and had no explanation worthwhile to offer. We are informed that the assessee has filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order dated 31.12.2018 and the same is pending. Tax case appeal is disposed of and the Substantial Questions of law are left open as we find that the issue has become academic in the case due to developments which have taken place during the pendency of this appeal.