Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held  that the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that the court had set aside the block assessment in the case of Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd  and directed fresh assessment to be made. Therefore, the Tribunal thought it fit to set aside the assessment in the case of the assessee and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment with a direction to take into consideration further developments in the block assessment of Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd   . The remand was for a very limited purpose and therefore, the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings could not have altered the protective assessment of the assessee as there was no change or development in the findings recorded in the second block assessment order of Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd   . Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment order was vitiated as it exceeded the specific direction given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had rightly came to the conclusion that when there was no change in the reassessment order in the case of Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd   taking note of the direction issued by the Tribunal in the order in the year 1999, the Assessing Officer in the second reassessment proceedings could not have disturbed the findings rendered in the original block assessment order in the year 1998 in the assessee’s case as it would amount to the second Assessing Officer reviewing his own order which power was not vested with him. The Tribunal rightly concluded that the protective assessment was not warranted in the hands of the assessee because the assessee had been able to discharge the onus for showing the nature and source of credit entries in the bank account of Kalao Engineering Ltd  and Pragati Engineering Ltd  as well as in the bank accounts of N. C.Jain and P.L. Mittal  which in turn were sourced from Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd    and its subsidiaries and it was evident that the source of money for Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd     and subsidiaries was in turn from ICDs which prompted the Assessing Officer to disallow the interest expenditure in the hands of Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd    and therefore, the addition made in respect of credit entries in the bank accounts of the two entities were unjustified and rightly directed to be deleted. Thus, the Tribunal after verifying and examining the factual position had granted relief to the assessee and was justified in setting aside the second assessment order.(BP. 1-4 -1986 to 27 -8 -19986  )