SUNIL AMBWANI, ADITYA NATH MITTAL, JJ. - (1.) THE income tax appeal no.47 of 2003 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.9.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.6001/Del/96, relating to block period from 25.8.1984 to 26.10.1995.
(2.) THE connected Income Tax Appeal No.50 of 2012, under Section 260A of the Act arises out of the judgment and order dated 10.6.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ITA No.6107/Del/96 relating to block period 1.4.1985 to 14.11.1995. The ITA No.47 of 2003 was admitted on 20.7.2007 on the following questions of law: - "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is legally correct in holding that two separate assessments should have been made in this case, one for the block period the date of search u/s 132 concluded on 20.10.1995 and another for the block period ending on the date of requisition under section 132A of the amount of 30 lacs from the custody of Police Authorities i.e. on 16.07.1996? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the addition made u/s 69 of IT Act, 1961 for Rs.30 lacs out of Rs.1.03 crore looted from the assessee and Sh. Dabi Sarin as per information of the S.H.O. Thana Rakabganj, Agra was illegal and bad in law as the same was beyond the scope of the block assessment made in the case? 3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is legally correct in law and on facts in deleting the addition made u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 being undisclosed income admitted by the Assessee during the course of the statement recorded u/s 132 (4) of the IT Act, 1961? 4. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is legally correct in observing that the notice u/s 158BC of the IT Act was bad in law?"
(3.) THE ITA No.50 of 2012 was admitted on 16.7.2007 on the following questions of law: - "(1) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in observing that Notice U/s 158 BC of I.T. Act, 1961 was bad in law and that warrant of authorisation U/s 132 -A of I.T. Act, 1961 remained unexecuted? (2) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that two separate assessments should have been made in the instant case for the block period upto date of search U/s 132 (1) concluded on 14.11.1995 and the order for the block period ending on requisition of the amount of Rs.72.60 lakhs from the custody of police authorities i.e. on 16.10.1996? (3) Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the addition of Rs.73 lakhs u/s 69 -A of I.T. Act, 1961 out of Rs.1.03 crores looted from the assessee and Shri N.N. Mittal as per information of the S.O. Thana Rakahganj, Agra was illegal and bad in law as the same fall beyond the scope of block assessment? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.42.60 lakhs and Rs.30.40 lakhs as undisclosed income U/s 69 -A of I.T. Act, 1961? (5) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/ - made U/s 69 -A being unexplained investment of speculation business by estimate to earn profit of Rs.One Crore as against Rs.5,000/ - admitted by the assessee? (6) Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in directing the A.O. to allow deductions claimed under Chapter IV and VIA of I.T. Act, 1961 which were allowed in regular assessments for the respective assessment years, while computing the undisclosed income U/s 158 BB (i) for the block period 1.4.1985 to 14.1.1995? (7) Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs.1,00,500/ - made U/s 145 read with Section 55 (2) of the I.T. Act 1961 on account of goodwill received by the assessee on retirement from the firm M/s Sarin Chemical Laboratory Agra from the period Assessment Year 1993 -94 which was added as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1993 -94?" ;