JUDGMENT :

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (tribunal) in I.T.(SS).A No. 10/Kol/2002 for the block period 01.04.1986 to 27.08.1996. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

1) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal while setting aside the Second assessment order, was justified in negating and/or countering the findings of the Second Assessing Officer with that of the First Assessing Officer.

2) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in replacing the opinion of the second assessing officer regarding withdrawal of cash from the bank accounts of M/s. Kalo Engineering Works and M/s. Pragati Engineering Company with its own opinion without mentioning the facts leading to such conclusion.

2. We have heard Mr. Om Narain Rai, learned senior standing counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Asim Chowdhury and Mr. Soham Sen, learned advocates appearing for the respondent assessee.

3. The facts which are necessary for considering the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are set out as hereunder:

4. A search was conducted during 1996 on the group of M/s. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited (Shaw Wallace) and also on the respondent assessee as well. Pursuant to the search, the original block assessment under Section 158BC of the Act was completed on 27.02.1998 making an addition of Rs. 11.86 crores on protective basis. The addition was made on the ground that the assessee had withdrawn cash from two bank accounts of M/s. Pragati Engineering Limited (PEL) and M/s. Kalo Engineering Works Limited (KEW) and the same was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and accordingly, addition was made on protective basis. The assessee challenged the said assessment order before the tribunal and by order dated 08.10.1999, the tribunal set aside the block assessment order and directed the assessing officers to examine the facts of the case once more after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard and also to take it into consideration further developments in the block assessment, of Shaw Wallace and thereafter to come up with a fresh assessment order in the case of the assessee. Pursuant to the order passed by the tribunal, reassessment was completed and second block assessment order dated 27.03.2002 was passed making substantive addition of Rs. 12.41 crores as undisclosed income on the ground of credit entries/cheques deposited in two bank accounts of the PEL and KEW. The assessee assailed the correctness of the order by filing an appeal before the tribunal contending that the assessing officer committed an error in making substantive addition in the reassessment on a new issue which was not subject to the assessment which was set aside by the tribunal by order dated 08.10.1999 and such new addition in the reassessment is void in law and not permissible. It was further contended that the assessing officer committed an error in changing the findings given by his predecessor in the original block assessment especially in the absence of any fresh material or evidence and it is a case of change of opinion. Further the assessing officer committed a serious error in making the addition by ignoring findings of the assessing officer in the original assessment with regard to the source of deposit in two bank accounts were from Shaw Wallace and also erred in ignoring the findings of the ADIT(Investigation). Further it was contended that the assessing officer on one side made addition and on the other has rendered the finding that Shaw Wallace had siphoned off in cash through dubious methods in league with severa