IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE RAM RATANN MODI Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 11th March, 2020. For Appellant : Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Bag, Adv. Ms. E. Dey, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. D. Choudhury, Adv. Court : By order of tribunal dated 8th October, 1999, appeal of assessee was partly allowed by setting aside impugned block assessment and directing assessing officer to examine facts of case once more after hearing assessee, taking into account further developments in block assessment and make fresh assessment order. Rs.1186 lakhs were added to account to assessee on protective basis . This protective addition was made in connection with block assessment order made in case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (SWC) where these additions were made in substantive manner . According to tribunal, since this substantive addition had been set aside and remanded, case of assessee required re-look. This remand was thus very limited. matter was remitted to assessing officer. From order of assessing officer dated 27th March, 2002, appeal was preferred before tribunal. 2 We find from impugned order of tribunal dated 31st March, 2005 that it has not confined itself to this narrow issue but has made consideration of issues which were not remanded to it. following grounds were taken : (i) That A.O. was wrong in making addition in reassessment on new issue, which was not subject to set aside assessment by ITAT in Appeal No. 17(SS)A No. 54/Cal/98 dated 8.10.99. As such, new addition of Rs.12,41,80,000/- (mentioned in course of hearing as Rs.12,41,00,000/- in reassessment is bad in law and not permissible as per law, need to be detected. (ii) That A.O. was wrong in changing findings given by his predecessor in original assessment. No fresh material or evidence, as such change in opinion and finding from original assessment, is not permissible. As such, addition made based on change of opinion and finding is wrong and need to be deleted. (iii) That A.O. was wrong in making addition of Rs.12,41,00,000/- whereas sources of deposit in two bank A/c. were from SWC and its subsidies, which is clear cut finding of A.O. in original assessment. Ignoring findings of ADIT (inv) & his predecessor in assessment and document submitted at time of reassessment proceeding, without any basis, is need to be deleted. (iv) A.O. one side he made addition and other side he himself gives finding that SWCL, had siphoned off in cash through dubious methods in league with several person. This shows that money does not belong to assessee and belongs to SWCL and sources of deposit in two Bank A/cs. Stands well explained. As such, addition need to be deleted. We find also from impugned order of tribunal dated 31st March, 2005 that tribunal has not addressed these issues in manner that they should have been dealt with in accordance with earlier order of tribunal dated 8th October, 1999. 3 For those reasons, we set aside impugned order of tribunal dated 31st March, 2005. As fifteen years have elapsed, we direct tribunal to re- determine appeal as expeditiously as possible by hearing parties and by reasoned order preferably within four months of communication of this order. appeal (ITA No.170 of 2005) is, accordingly, disposed of. (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) A.Dey Ram Ratann Modi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central