the plea made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee merits acceptance for the reason that admittedly,searchand seizure operations were carried out under Section 132 of the IT Act in the residential premises of the husband of the appellant viz., Mr.G.Narambulingam on 18.01.2000 and notice under Section 158BD of the IT Act were issued to the appellant and her husband on 31.05.2000 and 31.01.2020 respectively. No doubt, in the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), challenging the order of assessment dated 29.05.2002 passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant did not appear and based on the materials available, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 08.12.2016. However in the appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a specific ground as to the inclusion of certain income at the hands of her husband and remanding of the matter had been raised and in fact the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated 31.08.2017 in paragraph no.9 though referred to the order of remission passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as regard her husband, proceeded to dispose of the appeal. 18. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that after the order of remission passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 30.04.2008, as to the husband of the appellant / assessee, the proceedings are not yet completed. 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, once certain portion of the undisclosed income are added to the husband and that in respect of certain issues, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the order dated 30.04.2008, filed by her husband, has remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Madurai and during the course of arguments, it was also brought to the knowledge of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it should have been remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for adjudication.