- (1.) All the appeals have been filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the consolidated judgment and order dated 13.02.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in I.T.A. Nos. 762(Alld.)/1999; 763(Alld.)/1999; 304/(Alld)2002; and 305(Alld)/2002, for the block period from 01.04.1986 to 13.02.1997.
(2.) On 10.07.2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the Appeals No. 179 of 2004 and 18 of 2012, on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in disposing the departmental appeals in ITA No.726(Alld)/1999 and ITA No.763(Alld)/1999 and assessee appeals in ITA No.304 (Alld)/2000 and ITA No.305(Alld)/2000 by common order holding that the revenue and the assessees had taken common grounds of appeal in the respective appeals and cross objections. 2. Whether Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in holding that the compilation Annexure 1 in the affidavit of Sri Vinod Saraf cannot be termed as additional evidence or information. 3. Whether Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in taking into consideration the compilation Annexure 1 in the affidavit of Shri Vinod Saraf filed by the assessee during the course of hearing which is contrary to the assessee's own submission in the letter dated 14.09.1998 filed before the Assessing Officer that the unexplained income entire block period has been determined on the basis of computation chart filed in support of the returned income. 4. Whether Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in directing for the computation of undisclosed income ignoring the grounds in the appeals in ITA No.762 (Alld)/1999 and ITA No.763 (Alld)/1999 and C.O. No.14(Alld)/2000 and C.O. No.15(Alld)/2000 filed by the assessees, which were restricted to the issues relating to the relief granted by the CIT (Appeals), Varanasi and the Grounds No.3 and 4 of the Cross objection filed by the assessee requesting for accepting the peak investments shown by them in returned income and deletion of addition over and above the same. 5. Whether Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in issuing direction "even if as a result of exercise of re-computation of undisclosed income as has been directed by us above, the computation goes below the returned income, the same has to be taken as it is while giving effect to this order", which is in violation of the provisions of Section 158 BC debarring the assessees from revising the return. 6. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in exceeding the power given u/s 254 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by issuing the directions "even if as a result of exercise of re-computation of undisclosed income as has been directed by us above, the computation goes below the returned income, the same has to be taken as it is while giving effect to this order", which is in violation of the provisions of Section 158 BC debarring the assessees from revising the return. 7. Whether Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in issuing directions for re-computation of undisclosed income on the basis of affidavit filed by Sri Vinod Saraf during the course of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT, which may have effect on the revising the returned income in contravention of the provisions of Section 158 BC. 8. The order of the Hon'ble ITAT being erroneous in law and on facts deserves to be vacated and that order of the Assessing officer to be restored. "
(3.) On 04.09.2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the Appeals No. 8 of 2012 and 22 of 2012, on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in setting aside and quashing the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 04.10.2000 and the appellate order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 14.08.2002. 2. Whether Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in setting aside and quashing the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 04.10.2000 and the appellate order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 14.08.2002 on the basis of a combined order in ITA No. 762(Alld)/1999 and ITA No. 763(Alld)/1999 and assessee appeals in ITA No.304(Alld)/2000 and ITA No. 305(Alld)/2000. 3. The order of the Hon'ble ITAT being erroneous in law and on facts deserves to be vacated and that order of the Assessing Officer to be restored.";