(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Both these appeals filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1961") have arisen from the same judgment dated 15.9.1999 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench 'A', Allahabad(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal) in ITA No. 1551(Alld) of 1997 relating to Block period from 1.4.1994 to 28.11.1996. Assessee as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'Revenue') both have come in appeal before this Court and hence both appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate have appeared on behalf of Assessee and Sri Manish Goel, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Revenue.

3. Revenue's appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in holding that authorization for search issued under section 132 and on the basis of which search was conducted against Assessee, was invalid, and if so, whether notice issued under section 158 BC of Act, 1961 to Assessee was invalid?

(2) Whether notice dated 8.5.1997 issued under section 158 BC was invalid because material requisitioned under section 132-A of Act, 1961 was not available to Income Tax Department till that date?

(3) Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notice dated 8.5.1997 was invalid because it did not specify status of Assessee?

(4) Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notice dated 8.5.1997 was invalid because it did not indicate, whether it was issued on the basis of search or requisition or both?

(5) Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notice dated 8.5.1997 was invalid because it mentioned block period as 1.4.1986 to 28.12.1996 while assessment has been made for the period 1.4.1994 to 28.11.1996 ?

(6) Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that power under section 132 of Act, 1961 was not exercised in the case of Assessee, M/s. Verma Roadways, and no warrant of authorisation was issued against Assessee, therefore, seizure and issue of notice under Section 158 BC and consequential block assessment against M/s. Verma Roadways was illegal?

(7) Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there existed no requisitioned material before issue of notice under section 158 BC and hence notice under section 158 BC issued against Assessee was illegal?

(8) Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Commissioner did not properly apply his mind to the matter before granting approval for assessment under section 158 BC and, therefore, approval was invalid?

(9) Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that addition of Rs.10,50,000/- on account of investment in trucks could not be made under Section 158 BA and 158 BB of Act, 1961?

(10) Whether Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to examine validity of proceedings of search carried out against Assessee under section 132 of Act, 1961?

4. Assessee's appeal was admitted on following two substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether Tribunal having held that the assessment was bad in law and void-ab-initio, was justified in not quashing assessment but remanding to Assessing Officer on various issues?

(2) Whether Tribunal's finding that Assessee failed to establish that amount of Rs.65,59,302/- belong to Late Rameshwar Dayal Shiksha Samiti is based on no evidence, therefore, perverse?

5. The fact in brief giving rise to these appeals are that Assistant Director (Anti Evasion), Central Excise, Kanpur conducted a search on 27.11.1996 on the premises no.133/225 & 133/283, Transport Nagar, Kanpur. Assessee had its Head Office at 133/225, Transport Nagar, Kanpur and Branch office at 133/283 Transport Nagar, Kanpur. Excise authorities