Joginder Pall, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by Revenue against two orders of CIT(A), Ludhiana, against block assessment for block period from 1st April, 1990 to 6th Feb., 2001. Since issues involved in these appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. First, we take up main case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sharda Adhlakha in IT(SS)A No. 34/Asr/2003 for block period 1st April, 1990 to 6th Feb., 2001. first two grounds of appeal are as under: "(i) learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of case in deleting undisclosed income of Rs. 7,77,500 determined on basis of unaccounted transactions, daily statements of receipts and expenditure seized from assessee. (ii) learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of case in deleting addition of Rs. 11,09,802 made on basis of computer floppies seized." facts of case are that IT Department had carried out search and seizure action under s. 132(1) on 6th Feb., 2001, at business and residential premises of assessee. During search action, cash of Rs. 4,87,175, gold ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 19,95,737 and other valuables worth Rs. 2,65,300 were found. Besides, some incriminating documents indicating undisclosed income from business/profession were also found. Thereafter, AO issued notice under s. 158BC on 12th Dec., 2001, calling upon assessee to file return for block period within 20 days of service of notice. return was filed on 31st July, 2001, disclosing therein undisclosed income of Rs. 7,48,000. AO completed block assessment on 28th Feb., 2003, determining undisclosed income at Rs. 21,37,302 by making certain additions. These were subject-matter of appeal before CIT(A) and are also subject-matter of present appeal. merits of such claims are discussed in succeeding paragraphs. During course of search, certain loose documents in nature of statements of receipts and expenditure were found from residence of assessee. These documents were listed in Annex. AR-1, at pp. 134 to 160 and related to period between 1st Jan., 2001 to 5th Feb., 2001 (i.e., upto date of search). comparison of receipts with residence shown in regular books of account indicated that substantial part of such income had not been disclosed in regular books of account. assessee was confronted with these facts. assessee filed chart showing date-wise chart of excess income over expenditure and worked out undisclosed income at Rs. 76,413. Later on, AO examined matter further and found that receipts were at higher amount. Therefore, AO asked assessee to file reconciliation. assessee pointed out certain expenses mentioned in daily statement of receipts and expenditure, which were admissible, but were not debited in books of account. Ultimately, unaccounted receipts worked out to Rs. 84,374. However, AO observed that there were certain expenses of miscellaneous nature that were not admissible. Thus, taking into account all these facts, AO determined undisclosed income for period 1st Jan., 2001 to 5th Feb., 2001, i.e., for 36 days at Rs. 90,000. In addition to same, AO observed that such details were found only for period of 36 days. assessee denied to have maintained any such daily statements for earlier period. He also referred to statement of Smt. Seema, receptionist, recorded by Dy. DIT (Inv.), Amritsar, on 29th May, 2001, in which she admitted that this system of preparation of daily statement was in operation earlier also. AO observed that very fact that substantial amount of unaccounted income was found recorded on daily statement sheets maintained for 36 days, showed that book results could not be accepted and provisions of s. 145 were applicable. He further relied on judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CST vs. HM Esufali HM Abdulali 1973 CTR (SC) 317: (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Rajnik & Co. vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 171 CTR (AP) 117: (2001) 251 ITR 561 (AP) where estimation of profit for block period on basis of suppression of receipts for limited period was upheld in block assessment. Thus, taking into account these facts, AO estimated total suppressed income for one year on basis of suppressed income of Rs. 90,000 found on receipts during period from 1st Jan., 2001 to 5th Feb., 2001, at Rs. 7,77,500 and made addition for block period accordingly. During course of search of assessee s residence, two computer floppies marked as OR-I and OR-II forming part of seized document Annex. AR-VII were found and seized which contained date-wise records of patients admitted, operated at Adhlakha Hospital including names of doctors, names of patients, date of admission, date of discharge and fees charged from patients under different heads for period from 23rd Aug., 1996 to 28th June, 1997, i.e., for about 10 months. When assessee was confronted with these facts, assessee stated vide letter dt. 17th Feb., 2003, that data was prepared on computer on trial basis and that receipts mentioned in this record were not only hospital receipts, but also receipts of doctors/surgeons operating at hospital which were directly credited to their accounts. It was also stated that total hospital receipts during period aggregated to Rs. 14,27,700 out of which substantial part was recorded in books. assessee submitted that undisclosed income for period worked out to Rs. 4,27,720. However, AO observed that such receipts were only for part of two financial years, i.e., 1996-97 and 1997-98. provisions of s. 145 were applicable because assessee had suppressed substantial amount of such income. Applying ratio of undisclosed receipts found at Rs. 2,62,675 and Rs. 1,64,375 for financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98, respectively, AO determined undisclosed income for complete two assessment years at Rs. 4,35,802 and Rs. 6,74,000, respectively. In this manner, AO made additions of Rs. 11,09,802 as against undisclosed income of Rs. 4,27,720 shown by assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee impugned aforesaid additions in appeal before CIT(A). It was submitted before CIT(A) that estimation of income of remaining period for which no incriminating documents were found by multiplying results of 36 days and subsequent period of 10 months in financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98 was not correct. It was submitted that no such statements were prepared for earlier period and also information on floppies had been maintained only for limited period. There was no other floppies had been maintained only for limited period. There was no other evidence to show that assessee had earned undisclosed income for remaining period as well. Reliance was placed on decisions of Tribunal, Bombay, in case of Pooja Bhatt vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Mumbai) 817: (2003) 73 ITD 205 (Mumbai) and Sunder Agencies vs. Dy. CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (Mumbai) 610: (1997) 63 ITD 245 (Mumbai), judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Faqir Chand Chaman Lal (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 621: (2003) 262 ITR 295 (P&H), in support of contention that for purpose of computing undisclosed income, only entries found in seized documents could be taken into account. It was submitted that estimation of income by multiplying results of seized documents with remaining period was not in conformity with scheme of block assessments as envisaged in Chapter XIV-B of IT Act. It was also submitted that judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of HM Esufali HM Abdudali (supra) was distinguishable on facts as same related to sales-tax assessment. It was also submitted that AO had referred to statement of receptionist who was not concerned with maintenance of accounts and, therefore, reliance by AO on her statement was not proper. Thus, it was contended that assessee had already declared undisclosed income based on daily statement of receipts and expenditure and transactions recorded on computer floppies. It was also argued that judgment of Hon ble apex Court in case of Rajnik & Co. vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) was distinguishable on facts of case. In that case, there was detection of suppressed sale for 24 days from 28th Dec., 1995 to 20th Jan., 1996, and 15 days from 23rd Oct., 1996 to 8th Nov., 1996, which were not entered in books of account. Besides, there was sworn statement of partner that assessee-firm had followed practice of suppression of sales not only during asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 1997-98, but also in earlier asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1995-96. It was stated that only in these circumstances, estimation of undisclosed income for block period based on material on record and statement of partner was held to be proper. But in present case, there was no such admission by partners. Accepting contentions of assessee and by relying on decisions cited before him, learned CIT(A) vide his order dt. 1st Aug., 2003, held that there was no justification for making additions other than those disclosed in return filed for block assessments. Revenue is aggrieved by order of CIT(A). Hence, these appeals before us. learned Departmental Representative, Shri Ashwani Mahajan, heavily relied on order of AO and reiterated reasoning given by AO for rejecting book results and for invoking provisions of s. 145. learned Departmental Representative referred to p. 3 of assessment order, where AO has mentioned that during course of search, daily statements of receipts and expenditure marked at pp. 134 to 160 of Annex. AR-I were found and seized. These contained transactions of daily receipts and expenditure and when these were compared with regular books of account, all those transactions were not found recorded in books of account. He stated that these facts were admitted by assessee and assessee itself worked out income of Rs. 76,413 for 36 days. However, when matter was examined in detail, undisclosed income during period worked out to Rs. 84,374. working is given on pp. 3 and 4 of assessment order and this has not been challenged by assessee. He submitted that apart from income of Rs. 84,374, AO also observed that some of expenses recorded on these sheets were not in nature of allowables. Therefore, extent of undisclosed income was found at Rs. 90,000 during period of 36 days. He submitted that receptionist at counter had admitted in her statements from Dy. DIT (Inv.) on 29th May, 2001, that same system of preparation of daily statement was in operation in earlier period also. Considering fact that assessee herself admitted of not recording entire income in regular books of account by disclosing undisclosed income in return for block assessment, it would justify for invoking provisions of s. 145 of IT Act. He further submitted that AO has been fair enough to estimate only income for one year, i.e., relating to period when seized documents were found. He submitted that decision of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Rajnik & Co. vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) where estimation of undisclosed income for block period based on material on record and statement of partner was held to be justified. He further relied on judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Ved Parkash vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 642 (P&H), where Hon ble High Court has held that since books of account maintained by assessee were not reliable, assessment had to be made in light of material found during search where some element of estimation was unavoidable. He referred to amendment to sub-s. (b) of s. 158BC as amended by Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st July, 1995, as per which s. 144 and s. 145 were specifically made applicable to computation of undisclosed income for block assessment. He submitted that even if amendment has been introduced on subsequent date, yet it would be applicable to present case, because amendment has been made with retrospective effect. learned Departmental Representative advanced similar arguments in support of addition of Rs. 11,09,802 made on basis of two computer floppies marked as OR-I and OR- 2 of Annex. VII covering period 23rd Aug., 1996 to 28th June, 1997, i.e., for 10 months. He submitted that on basis of these entries, assessee herself worked out undisclosed income at Rs. 4,27,720 for period of 10 months which fell in financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Here also, learned Departmental Representative submitted that AO had estimated income only for two assessment years based on entries found during period for financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Thus, he submitted that learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting additions made by AO. learned Authorised Representative, Sh. Satish Bansal, on other hand, heavily relied on order of CIT(A) and reiterated submissions which were made before authorities below. He submitted that whatever documents were found during course of search, assessee had worked out undisclosed income at Rs. 76,413 on basis of daily statements of receipts and expenditure and Rs. 4,27,720 based on two computer floppies seized during course of search. He further submitted that there was no basis for making additions by multiplying results of seized documents, floppies to entire period of one assessment year and two financial years. He submitted that for purpose of computation of undisclosed income, AO was required to confine himself to entries recorded in books of account seized during course of search. He referred to various decisions/judgments relied upon by learned CIT(A) in his order. He particularly referred to decision of Tribunal, Pune Bench (TM), in case of Samrat Beer Bar vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Pune)(TM) 113: (2000) 75 ITD 19 (Pune)(TM), where it was held that AO was not within his right to make estimation of income for larger period beyond period indicated in seized material. He also relied on decision of Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (TM), in case of Babros Machinery Mfrs. (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2003) 78 TTJ (Ahd)(TM) 857: (2003) 84 ITD 91 (Ahd)(TM), where it was held that in case where no material was brought on record to prove that assessee had in fact sold any stock outside books of account, provisions of s. 145 cannot be applied while computing undisclosed income for block period. He also relied on judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Faqir Chand Chaman Lal (supra), where it was held that presumption howsoever k cannot be substitute evidence and if there is no direct nexus on point, no addition in block assessment can be made. Thus, it was contended that additions in this case could not have been made by multiplying results of seized documents to whole year and it was argued that learned CIT(A) had rightly deleted impugned additions. We have heard both parties and considered rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. We have also gone through orders of authorities below and referred to relevant pages of paper book to which our attention has been drawn. undisputed facts of case are that search took place on 6th Feb., 2001, and during course of search, daily statement of receipts and expenditure for period 1st Jan., 2001 to 5th Feb., 2001, i.e., for 36 days right upto date of search were found and seized. There is no dispute about fact that all receipts and expenses shown on daily statements were not recorded in regular books of account. In fact, assessee admitted income of Rs. 76,413 and when detailed and minute working was done by AO, undisclosed income was found at Rs. 84,374. Since these daily statements showed certain expenses which were not allowable, AO worked out undisclosed income for period of 36 days of Rs. 90,000 and no worthwhile arguments have been advanced before us to show that working of AO was incorrect. While making addition for one year by invoking provisions of s. 145, AO has also referred to statement of Smt. Seema, receptionist, who submitted that similar system of preparing detail statements was in operation in earlier years also. It is also not in dispute that two computer floppies relating to period 23rd Aug., 1996 to 28th June, 1997, falling in two financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98, respectively, were also found and seized. It is also not in dispute that during period of 10 months, assessee had not disclosed her entire income in regular books of account and undisclosed income of Rs. 4,27,720 was admitted during period of 10 months. No arguments have been advanced before us to assail working of addition made by AO. These facts establish beyond doubt that assessee has been regularly suppressing her income during these assessment years. It is also quite relevant to mention that while computer floppies relates to financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98, daily statement of receipts and expenses relate to part of period falling in financial year 2000-01. Thus, it shows that assessee not only started suppressing her income during financial year 2000-01, i.e., right upto date of search but also was suppressing such income even during financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Now, in light of these facts, it is required to be seen whether AO was justified in invoking provisions of s. 145 for estimating income for one year, i.e., financial year 2000-01 based on results of undisclosed income found on seized documents for 36 days and estimating income for two financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98, where undisclosed receipts for 10 months were found recorded on computer floppies. This issue came to be considered by Tribunal, Pune Bench, in case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Pune)(TM) 135: (2001) 250 ITR 18 (Pune)(TM)(AT), where it was held that language of s. 143(3) as also s. 158BB make it abundantly clear that assessment to be made by AO should be based on evidence before AO. word "evidence" has to be construed in comprehensive sense and it includes circumstantial evidence. material or evidence on which taxing authorities may base assessment is not confined to direct testimony by witnesses. Such evidence need not only be evidence found during course of search, but also on material gathered by him. Tribunal further observed that AO was not fettered by technical rules of evidence and like and he may act on material which may not, strictly speaking, be accepted as evidence in Court of law. It may be circumstantial evidence or assessment based on preponderance of probabilities judged by human conduct. For this purpose, past history of case, living style of assessee and general conditions of market in particular trade will constitute relevant material for purposes of assessment. Thus, it was held that provisions of s. 145 could be applied for computation of undisclosed income. Even in case of Rajnik & Co. vs. Asstt. CIT (supra), detection of suppressed sales was found only for 24 days from 28th Dec., 1995 to 27th Jan., 1996, and 15 days from 23rd Oct., 1996 to 8th Nov., 1996. On basis of such detection and sworn statement of partner, where he admitted that even for earlier period such suppression was resorted to, AO estimated income for entire block period from 1986-87 to 1997-98. action of AO by applying certain percentage of profit was upheld by High Court. Of course, present case is slightly distinguishable for reasons that there is no sworn statement of assessee for earning of such undisclosed income. But, it is also fact that AO has not estimated income by applying results of undisclosed income found on seized documents for entire block period. He has restricted addition only to those years when evidence for undisclosed income was found during course of search. In any case, it has been held that provisions of s. 145 can also be invoked for estimating undisclosed income for block period if there is evidence and material found during course of search. Earlier, there could be some doubt as to whether income could be estimated or not. But, provisions of s. 158BC(b) have been amended by Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995, as per which ss. 144 and 145 have been specifically made applicable to block assessments. All decisions, which assessee has relied on and even referred to by learned CIT(A), relate to period prior to amendment to s. 158BC(b). Moreover, if no material was found during search which could show suppression of income, no estimation of income by resorting to provisions of s. 145 could be made. But, where there is material such estimation can be made. However, position has materially changed after amendment has been introduced in Act. Therefore, ratio of those decisions would not be applicable after amendment to sub-s. (b) of s. 158BC had come into being. learned counsel has not drawn our attention to any decision where amended sub-s. (b) of s. 158BC has been considered by Bench. As regards judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana Court in case of CIT vs. Faqir Chand Chaman Lal (supra), relied upon by learned Authorised Representative, same was on its own facts. addition for asst. yr. 1986-87 was deleted for reason that firm had not come into being for that assessment year. As regards other additions, same were deleted on merits for reasons that additions were made purely on surmises and conjectures. But as mentioned earlier, in present case, there is direct evidence about undisclosed income during period for which additions have been made. Therefore, ratio of this judgment would not be applicable to facts of present case where there is direct evidence found during search which shows suppression of income during period falling in block period. assessee herself admitted undisclosed income on basis of seized documents and records. In subsequent case of Ved Parkash vs. CIT (supra), facts before Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court were that during course of search under s. 132, certain incriminating material had been found from residential and business premises of assessee and its partners which indicated that assessee had purchased substantial quantity of Sarson outside books of account. Since books of account maintained by assessee were not found reliable, assessment had been made in light of material recovered during search. In light of these facts, Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that some element of estimate was unavoidable while computing undisclosed income relating to block period. Now, in this case, learned CIT(A) decided appeal on 1st Aug., 2 0 0 3 . Although amendment to s. 145 had come into operation with retrospective effect, learned CIT(A) has not taken into account same while deciding present appeal. Such amendment has been introduced with retrospective effect right from date when Chapter XIV-B was introduced in statute. Therefore, this shows intention of legislature to apply provisions of s. 145 to block assessment right from beginning and negate ratio of various decisions where it was held that income could not be estimated for block period. Now, if same view is taken that income could not be estimated by applying provisions of s. 145, it would amount to going against legislative intent. In present case, AO has been fair and reasonable in estimating income only for those assessment years to which seized material was found and seized. In this case, we find that information on floppies was found for two assessment years, i.e., financial year 1996-97 and 1997-98. Thereafter, information found was for period for 36 days from 1st Jan., 2001 to 5th Feb., 2001, i.e., right upto date of search. If we apply test of human probability, it does not appeal to reason that assessee resorted to suppression of receipts first in asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98 relevant to asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively, and thereafter, assessee resumed this practice only just before 36 days of search. These facts clearly point out to fact that assessee was suppressing income right from asst. yr. 1997-98 to date of search. Still Department has estimated income for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to date of search. Department has excluded entire remaining block period where no evidence was found. In fact, onus was entirely on assessee to show with cogent, reliable and positive evidence that she has not earned income in remaining period. This could be done by producing similar daily statements of receipts and expenses for remaining period to show that entire receipts and expenses recorded therein match with regular books of account and there is no suppression of receipts. Mere denial that she has not earned such income is not enough. Therefore, we are of opinion that estimation of income for those assessment years for which seized documents were found during search was justified and warranted by facts of present case. Thus, action on part of CIT(A) in deciding appeal by relying on decisions which were applicable to pre-amended provisions and without referring to amendment introduced to s. 158BC(b) with retrospective effect is erroneous and unjustified. Be that as it may, quantum of additions to be made requires to be decided after allowing opportunity to assessee on these aspects. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of case, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside order of CIT(A) and restore these two grounds to his file for deciding same afresh as per law and after allowing proper opportunity to assessee and after taking into account amended provisions of s. 158BC(b) of Act. While redeciding matter, assessee shall be free to make all submissions, which were made before us. We order accordingly and these two grounds of appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. next ground of appeal relates to deletion of addition made on account o f undisclosed income of Rs. 1,30,000 earned from special medical camps organised. facts of case are that during course of search, certain documents were found which indicated that assessee and M/s Adhalkha Hospital had organised special endoscopy and infertility camp in Amritsar for which doctors were called from Bombay. Evidence in form of advertisement for these camps was found as per pp. 18 to 21 of Annex. AR-4. list of patients operated in one camp was found and seized as per pp. 19 and 20 of Annex. AH- 69 which indicated that 29 patients were operated. Further, data for organising these camps was also found in computer seized which indicated that six such camps were organised during period 1997 to 1999. Statement of assessee was also recorded where she stated that operation charges amounting to Rs. 5,000 were given to Dr. R.K. Sinha and balance charges from patients were her receipts. Statement of Dr. R.K. Sinha was also recorded where he admitted that amount of Rs. 40,000 per camp for two days was charged by him and his stay arrangements were also made by M/s Adhlakha Hospital. assessee stated that expenses and receipts from these camps were duly accounted for in books of account from 31st March, 1999 to 14th Dec., 2000. AO observed that such camps were also held during period from 25th May, 1997 to 9th Aug., 1998. Therefore, he estimated undisclosed income of Rs. 1,30,000 and made addition of same. Being aggrieved, assessee impugned addition in appeal before CIT(A). It was submitted before CIT(A) that such income was duly reflected in books of account of Dr. A.L. Adlakha (HUF) and copy of ledger account for both years was also enclosed. It was also stated that HUF had filed returns disclosing therein income from such camps. It was stated that receipts from these camps were shown by HUF at Rs. 1,74,180, Rs. 5,61,545, 12,94,185 and Rs. 11,36,320 for asst. yrs. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, respectively. Thus, it was contended that there was no basis for making any addition in hands of assessee. Accepting contentions of assessee, learned CIT(A) deleted impugned addition by recording following findings in paras 4.2 and 4.3: "4.2 I have examined matter carefully and I am inclined to agree with contentions of learned Authorised Representative for reason that A O has estimated income for two years, i.e., asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999- O has estimated income for two years, i.e., asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999- 2000 which is duly recorded in books of Dr. A.L. Adlakha, HUF. appellant vide letters dt. 14th Feb., 2003 and 25th Feb., 2003, had informed AO that medical camps were organised by M/s IVF Diagnostic Centre, Prop. Dr. A.L. Adlakha (HUF), and that all fees charged had duly been recorded in books of account of HUF and that HUF has shown receipt of said amounts in asst. yrs. 1997-98 to 2000-01. No admission was ever made regarding income of these camps as belonging to appellant and no seized document indicated any undisclosed income. Further, income of these camps for earlier years has been accepted by AO in hands of HUF itself. In light of above, it becomes absolutely clear that said income pertained to HUF of Dr. A.L. Adlakha and was being duly accounted for therein. Therefore, I see no justification for said addition in hands of appellant. AO is accordingly directed to delete this addition." Revenue is aggrieved by order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on order of A O and referred to reasoning given by AO on pp. 7 and 8 of assessment order. learned Authorised Representative, on other hand, reiterated submissions made before CIT(A) and submitted that entire receipts from camps were duly reflected in returns of income filed by HUF. Therefore, there was no scope for making any addition on this account. We have heard both parties and carefully considered rival contentions. plea that such income belonged to HUF and was duly accounted for in books of account was taken before AO during course of block assessment proceedings. There is no admission by assessee or evidence that such income belonged to assessee. In fact, we find that total receipts shown by HUF from organising these camps are much higher than those estimated by AO. Since such income had been disclosed by HUF and there is no evidence that income belonged to assessee and further no material has been placed before us to show that income had indeed been earned by assessee, we are of considered opinion that no addition for same was called for in hands of assessee. Accordingly, we confirm order of CIT(A) and reject this ground of appeal. next ground relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on education of assessee s son. facts of case are that during course of search, bio-data of Mr. Sahil Adlakha, son of assessee, was found and seized at pp. 155 and 156 of AR-1. same revealed that he did his schooling at Lawrence School, Sanawar (HP), had his college education from Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi, and thereafter did hospital training course from Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, and Nizam Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Sciences, Hyderabad, and did Event Management and Marketing course from New York University. AO also collected information from school and college regarding payments made for his education. AO also collected information from school for payments made for years 1990, 1991 and 1992, which amounted to Rs. 56,658. His payments for college during period of 3 years totalled to Rs. 5,084. When assessee was confronted with these facts, assessee explained that payments of Rs. 25,218 made to school in 1990 related to period prior to commencement of block period. amount of Rs. 46,559 being payments made to school in 1991 and 1992 were debited in books of account and remaining payment was part of her undisclosed income. It was stated that in Delhi, he was staying with his uncle, father s brother, and expenditure incurred was made out of regular withdrawals. He visited Hyderabad only for day and incurred expenses of Rs. 1,600. As regards trip to New York, assessee claimed to have incurred expenses of Rs. 2,95,481, which were accounted for in books of account. AO, however, observed that withdrawals shown during period when he was studying in New Delhi were nominal. Taking into account these facts and expenditure of fees, books, stationery, clothing, pocket money, travelling, etc., AO made addition of Rs. 1 lakh to undisclosed income. Being aggrieved, assessee impugned addition in appeal before CIT(A). learned CIT(A) observed that assessee had himself surrendered amount of Rs. 50,000 to cover unaccounted expenses for education of her son. Taking into account evidence and material on record and in absence of any other incriminating material which came to light during course of block assessment, learned CIT(A) held that there was no basis for addition of Rs. 1 lakh. He, therefore, deleted same. Revenue has now brought this issue in appeal before us. learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on order of AO. learned counsel for assessee, on other hand, relied on order of CIT(A) and reiterated submissions which were made before authorities below. We have heard both parties and given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. From facts discussed above, it is obvious that assessee had disclosed income of Rs. 50,000 to cover education expenses of son. Even though AO made detailed enquiries by collecting information from various schools and colleges, yet same did not show that addition called for on this account was more than amount of Rs. 50,000 surrendered during course of search. Further, no material was found during course of search which could show expenses of more than disclosed in return. Moreover, addition was also made on estimate basis without making any specific estimate to cover each head of office expenditure. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with order of CIT(A). same is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. next ground of appeal relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 13,80,358 made on account of unexplained investment in construction of building. facts of case are that assessee had purchased building in 1989 and later during block period, substantial additions/renovations were made. Two floors of building were used for purpose of hospital and top floor served as residence of assessee in her family. Investigation Wing referred property under s. 131(1)(d) to DVO for determination of cost of construction of building upto financial year 2001-02, who determined cost at Rs. 59,87,600. Thereafter, valuation report was confronted to assessee. assessee filed various objections stating therein that DVO has assessed cost of construction upto date of inspection, i.e., 4th Oct., 2002, whereas block period ended on 6th Feb., 2001. rates applied by DVO for giving credit to old building were less than rate applied for valuing cost of construction of whole building. While giving credit for old existed structure, DVO had left many items, basis of rates supplied were not given and rebate for self-supervision at 7.8 per cent instead of 15 per cent to 20 per cent and further reference to valuation cell could not be made. T h e learned AO after taking into account various contentions arrived at difference between cost of construction shown in books and as determined by DVO at Rs. 13,80,358 and made addition of same under s. 69 of IT Act. Being aggrieved, assessee carried matter in appeal before CIT(A). It was submitted before CIT(A) that during course of search and seizure action, no material was found which could show that assessee had understated cost of construction. It was also argued that report of DVO was purely estimation whereas assessee had been incurring expenditure on day-to-day basis and duly accounted for in books of account as well as in return of income filed year after year, and there was neither any document nor there was any reference in body of assessment order, which indicated undisclosed income by assessee. No document was seized in relation to any renovation or addition to building during course of search to show that assessee had utilised undisclosed income for making investment in property. Reliance was also placed on various decisions of Tribunals in cases of Indore Construction Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Ind) 420: (1999) 71 ITD 128 (Ind), Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in case of Aggarwal Motors vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Jab) 130: (1999) 68 ITD 407 (Jab), Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in case of Atul Kumar Jain vs. Dy. CIT (1999) 64 TTJ (Del) 786, judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Satinder Kumar (2001) 169 CTR (P&H) 325: (2001) 250 ITR 484 (P&H), judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Vinod Dan Chand Ghodawat (2000) 163 CTR (Bom) 432: (2001) 247 ITR 448 (Bom), decisions of Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in case of Sankta Prasad Gupta vs. ITO (2003) 128 TAXMAN 88 (Del)(Mag), Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in case of Dy. CIT vs. Smt. Veena Dhawan, IT(SS)A No. 6/Asr/1999, dt. 18th Sept., 2002, and Narula Transport Co. vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 87 TTJ (Asr) 803, dt. 26th June, 2002, where it was held that no addition could be made by relying on valuation report for computing undisclosed income of block period. Accepting contentions of assessee, learned CIT(A) has deleted addition. Revenue is aggrieved by order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on order of AO and drew our attention to pp. 8 to 11 of assessment order, where AO has given various reasons for making impugned addition. He submitted that learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld addition. learned Authorised Representative, on other hand, heavily relied o n order of CIT(A) and reiterated submissions made before authorities below. He submitted that assessee had maintained complete records of cost of construction and same was duly reflected in books of account. No material and evidence were found during course of search to show that assessee had incurred any extra amount on cost of construction than what was reflected in books of account. In addition to decisions/judgments already relied upon during course of proceedings before CIT(A), learned Authorised Representative further relied on decision of Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in case of Narinder Singh vs. Asstt. CIT in IT(SS)A No. 24/Asr/2003, dt. 31st March, 2005, Daljit Singh vs. Asstt. CIT IT(SS)A No. 8/Asr/2001, dt. 30th Dec., 2002, and Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in case of Kapur Sons Steels (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 119 TAXMAN 113 (Chd). We have heard both parties and given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. Now, undisputed facts of case are that assessee had maintained complete records of cost of construction and same was duly reflected in books of account. During course of search and seizure action, while evidence was found indicating undisclosed income from profession, no such evidence was found to show that assessee had utilised her undisclosed income in construction of house property. In fact, we find that reference to valuation cell was made after period of 7 months from date of search. Chapter XIV-B deals with computation of undisclosed income relating to block period. Sec. 158B(b) defines "undisclosed income" as to mean money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or any other income based on any entry in books of account or other documents or transactions, where such money, bullion, jewellery, valuable articles, things and entry in books of account or other document or transaction represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for purposes of this Act or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false. Now, when we see present case, we find that property was duly disclosed in books of account. cost of construction was duly reflected in books of account and was shown in balance sheet prior to date of search and same was already on income-tax records of Department. Further, no incriminating material or document was found during course of search, which could show that assessee had utilised part of undisclosed income in construction of said property. We also find that there is no reference to statement of assessee recorded during course of search which could show that part of investment made in property represents undisclosed income. Therefore, present addition falls outside scope of block assessment. While it could be part of regular assessment, which is different from block assessment, it could not be subject of block assessment. By relying on various decisions of Tribunal including that of Daljit Singh (supra) and Narula Transport Co. (supra), Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, vide its order dt. 31st March, 2005, in case of Narinder Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) and judgment of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Khushal Chand Nirmal Kumar (2003) 183 CTR (MP) 503: (2003) 263 ITR 77 (MP), judgment of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat (supra) and decision of Tribunal Delhi Bench in case of Subhash Chander Chopra IT(SS)A No. 5/Del/1996, dt. 14th Dec., 2004, we hold that no addition on account of difference in cost of construction as shown and as determined by DVO can be made for computing undisclosed income for block period, if there is no evidence or material found during course of search to show such explained investment. facts of present case are pari materia with facts of abovesaid case. Here also, no evidence was found during course of search to show that assessee had incurred part of cost of construction from his undisclosed income. Therefore, in light of these facts and circumstances of case and respectfully following aforesaid decisions/judgments, we confirm order of learned CIT(A) in deleting impugned addition. We confirm his order and reject this ground of appeal of Revenue. next ground of appeal relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 20,000 being unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign trip of son. facts of present case are that assessee s son, Sh. Sahil Adlakha, visited South East Asia in 1993 and countries covered during visit were Malaysia, Singapore and Bangkok. trip was for period of 39 days. AO observed that expenses incurred on trip shown in books were low. He, therefore, made n addition of Rs. 20,000. assessee challenged addition in appeal before CIT(A). On appeal, learned CIT(A) deleted addition on ground that cost of trip was paid by assessee from her bank account for which amount was withdrawn for purchase of 500 USD in 1993, i.e., maximum currency permitted by Government. assessee had also furnished details of withdrawals utilised for foreign trip from her bank account. Accepting contentions of assessee, learned CIT(A) deleted addition. Revenue has brought this issue in appeal before us. learned Departmental Representative relied on order of AO and learned Authorised Representative, on other hand, relied on order of CIT(A). Having considered rival contentions, we find no basis for making impugned addition. assessee has furnished complete evidence about foreign trip of her son. foreign exchange was purchased by withdrawing amount from bank account for which copies of bank statements were duly furnished before authorities below. Therefore, there is no justification for making addition of Rs. 20,000 on ad hoc basis. Accordingly, we confirm order of CIT(A) and reject these grounds of appeal of Revenue. next ground of appeal relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,04,147 made on account of unexplained jewellery. facts of case are that during course of search, certain gold ornaments and jewellery were found. assessee also surrendered amount of Rs. 1,20,000 being value of 300 gms. o f jewellery belonging to her son in his hands. assessee claimed to have received 502 gms. of jewellery inherited from her mother-in-law, Smt. Milan Devi, as per her will made on 18th Jan., 1995. However, AO observed that in her WT return, value of this jewellery had not been disclosed. But, assessee explained that jewellery was lying with cousin of assessee and her husband came to know of will only in 1996. AO rejected this submission on ground that it was not possible to believe that husband of assessee was not in knowledge of his mother bequeathing jewellery to his wife. AO, therefore, treated source of jewellery as representing undisclosed income of Rs. 2,04,147 and made addition accordingly. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). submissions made before AO were reiterated. It was submitted that this jewellery had been received from her mother-in-law by registered will. assessee s husband came to know only in year 1996 from one Sh. Ram Mohan Rai. His affidavit was also filed and Sh. K.N. Chaudhary, advocate, was witness. learned CIT(A) accepted submissions of assessee for reason that will in question was registered will, jewellery was received by assessee s husband in 1996 from Sh. Ram Mohan Rai, cousin of assessee s husband, and his affidavit had also been filed. certified copy of will was obtained in 1996. He also observed that AO had not doubted either affidavit filed by Sh. Ram Mohan Rai nor AO had made any enquiry that Sh. K.N. Chaudhary, advocate, had witnessed will. Revenue is aggrieved with order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on order of AO. learned counsel for assessee, on other hand, relied on order of CIT(A) and reiterated submissions made before authorities below. He also filed copy of registered will at pp. 45 to 47 of paper book, w h ic h was registered with Registrar, Amritsar. He submitted that jewellery was lying with cousin of assessee s husband, Mr. Ram Mohan Rai, who delivered same in 1996. We have heard both parties and given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. fact that there was registered will of late Smt. Milan Devi, is not in dispute. copy of same was placed before authorities below. Her husband obtained certified copy of will from Court in 1996. Therefore, explanation given by assessee that her husband came to know about this fact in 1995 appears to be correct and reasonable. fact that Smt. Milan Devi was staying with cousin of assessee s husband, namely, Sh. Ram Mohan Rai, further lends credence to fact that assessee s husband might not be aware of such fact prior to 1995. Moreover, factum of existence of will in 1995 is much before date of search. Therefore, it cannot be said that this was only afterthought to explain source of jewellery. In light of these facts and circumstances of case, we do not find any justification to interfere with order of CIT(A). same is upheld and this ground of appeal is rejected. last grievance of Revenue is that learned CIT(A) was not justified in directing AO not to charge surcharge on tax on undisclosed income computed for block period. facts of case are that at time of completing assessment, AO also charged surcharge on tax on undisclosed income computed for block period. On appeal, learned CIT(A) deleted surcharge by recording following findings in para 9.1 of impugned order: "9.1 I have examined this matter and I find force in contentions of learned Authorised Representative. Apart from decision of Hon ble Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in case of V.S. Fabrics V.S. Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT, in ITA No. 1218/Chandi/1996, dt. 22nd Nov., 2002, there is also judgment of Hon ble Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in case of Hemco Inds. vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 5/Asr/1996, dt. 25th Oct., 2002, where following judgment of Hon ble Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in case of Builcon Towers Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 113 TAXMAN 74 (Cal)(Mag) it was held that surcharge was not leviable in respect of searches, conducted before 1st June, 2002, as this amendment has not been made applicable with retrospective effect. judgment of Hon ble Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in case of D.G.P. Windsor (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Mumbai) 291: (2003) 84 ITD 641 (Mumbai), relied upon by learned Authorised Representative also adopts similar view. Respectfully following above decisions, I direct AO not to levy surcharge as case pertains to search conducted prior to 1st June, 2002." Revenue is aggrieved by order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. At outset, learned Departmental Representative and learned counsel for assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of assessee and against Revenue by earlier decisions of Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. We have heard both parties and considered rival contentions. We find that same issue came up before us in case of Dy. CIT vs. R.K. Jewellers in IT(SS)A No. 10/Asr/2004 where on identical facts, order of CIT(A) was upheld by recording following findings in para 6 of order: "6. We have heard both parties and considered rival submissions w i t h reference to facts, evidence and material on record. From facts discussed above, it is obvious that search and seizure action in present case was carried out by IT authorities on 1st March, 2001. Chapter XIV-B of IT Act, has been specifically inserted in IT Act, w.e.f. 1st July, 1995, and same prescribes special procedure for completion of block assessments. purpose of inserting such chapter was to make expeditious assessments in respect of cases where searches had taken place and to compute undisclosed income of block period. This was in addition to regular assessments provided under normal provisions of Act. rate of tax to be levied on undisclosed income was different from rate of tax on normal income disclosed in regular returns. As per provisions of s. 113, as these stood in statute prior to 1st June, 2002, it was not provided that in addition to tax on undisclosed income, surcharge should also be levied. However, proviso to s. 113 was inserted by Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st June, 2002, as per which levy of surcharge on undisclosed income was specifically provided w.e.f. 1st June, 2002. However, such proviso has not been given retrospective effect and is applicable only to cases where searches had been carried out after 1st June, 2002. In present case, search had been carried out prior to 1st June, 2002, and, therefore, no surcharge on tax on undisclosed income was leviable. This view also finds support from decision of Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in case of V.S. Fabrics & Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) and decision of Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in case of D.G.P. Windsor (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra) and also decision of Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in case of Hemco Industries vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 5/Asr/1996, dt. 25th Oct., 2002. Having regard to these facts and legal position, we are of opinion that order of CIT(A) does not merit any interference. same is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed." In present case also, search took place prior to 1st June, 2002, i.e., before proviso to s. 113 was inserted. Therefore, ratio of aforesaid decision is directly applicable to facts of present case. Respectfully following same, we confirm order of CIT(A) and reject ground of appeal of Revenue. We now take up appeal in case of Sh. Sahil Adhlakha, in IT(SS)A No. 33/Asr/2003. only issue raised in this appeal relates to deletion of addition of undisclosed income based on computer floppy. facts of case are that during course of search and seizure action at residence one CD- ROM marked "Doctor" and floppy diskette marked as OR-3 were seized forming part of Annex. AR-VII. said CD-ROM contained file where details of sales of pharmacy and general store for period 18th Sept., 1998 to 27th Nov., 1998, were found. Besides, floppy diskette marked as OR-3 contained data regarding sales for period from 1st April, 1997 to 27th June, 1997. AO then compared transactions found on this computer CD- June, 1997. AO then compared transactions found on this computer CD- ROM/floppy diskette with those recorded in books of account and found difference in sales outside books amounting to Rs. 2,51,002 for period 1st April, 1997 to 27th June, 1997, and Rs. 3,85,245 for period from 18th Sept., 1998 to 27th Nov., 1998. It may be further mentioned in response to notice issued under s. 158BC, assessee filed return declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 8,29,000. When assessee was confronted with this information, it was submitted that purchase and sale of medicines outside books of account was not regular feature and transactions found on above items of computer were for limited period. However, AO by applying same reasoning as in case of Dr. (Mrs.) Adhalakha estimated total turnover on basis of unaccounted sales found for 88 days and 71 days in financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively, and by applying GP rate of 28 per cent made addition of Rs. 8,46,040 on this account. When matter was carried in appeal before CIT(A), he deleted addition by relying on order in case of Dr. (Smt.) Sharda Adhalkha. Revenue is in appeal against order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. learned Departmental Representative submitted that facts of present case are pari materia with facts of Dr. *Smt.) Sharda Adhalkha and decision in that case would equally apply to facts of present case. learned Authorised Representative relied on order of CIT(A) and facts of case of Dr. (Smt.) Sharda Adhalkha. We have heard both parties and given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. It is not in dispute that facts of present case are identical to facts of Dr. (Smt.) Sharda Adhalkha where on identical facts, material found indicated undisclosed income for part of period. learned CIT(A) deleted additions. But, for reasons discussed in preceding paragraphs, we have restored matter to file of CIT(A) for deciding same afresh as per law and after allowing reasonable opportunity to assessee. For same reasons, we also consider it fair and appropriate to set aside order of CIT(A) and restore addition to his file for deciding same afresh as per law and after allowing reasonable opportunity to assessee and by taking into account observations made in this order while deciding appeal in case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sharda Adhalkha. We order accordingly and this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. next ground relates to direction given by CIT(A) for not charging surcharge on tax on undisclosed income. facts of this ground are identical to facts of case of Dr. (Smt.) Shardha Adhalkha. For detailed reasons given while deciding appeal in case of Dr. (Smt.) Sharda Adhalkha, we confirm order of CIT(A) and reject this ground of appeal of Revenue. In result, both appeals are allowed partly for statistical purposes. *** ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. DR. (MRS.) SHARDA ADHALKHA