Heard on question of admission. appellant being aggrieved by order passed by Tribunal in ITA(SS) No. 11/Ind/2005, dt. 20th July, 2007 for block period between 1st April, 1995 to 5th Dec., 2001, is before this Court with submission that Tribunal erred in not appreciating question argued before it and also erred in not appreciating that block assessment was made rightly by authorities. It is to be seen from appeal memo submitted before Tribunal, only question raised was on facts and in circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 13,37,237 made by AO for peak credit of farmer s account holding that such addition is totally outside scope of block assessment proceedings. From para 3 order passed by learned Tribunal, it would again appear that above referred was only question raised before Tribunal. Shri Jain, learned senior counsel for appellant vehemently contended that Tribunal did not take into consideration accounting made in s. 158B(b) of IT Act, defining "undisclosed income". He also submitted that proper and appropriate opportunity to defend was given to respondent assessee during which he did not object and, therefore, AO was justified in making assessment against interest of assessee. We have heard Shri Jain at length and have also gone through order passed by learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has referred to arguments of representatives of parties in paras 7, 8 and 9 in its order. It has found that search was conducted on 5th Dec., 2001 and notice under s. 158BC was issued by AO o n 9th Dec., 2002. In compliance to that, return was furnished on 10th Jan., 2003. First assessment proceeding was initiated on 6th Aug., 2003, when case was to become barred by limitation on 31st Dec., 2003. Tribunal also observed that there was no delay on part of assessee. Tribunal also took note of fact that AO required assessee to produce more than 900 farmers, which was impossible task. It was submitted by assessee that AO was making wrong allegation against assessee, especially in relation to delay while in fact, AO himself was solely responsible for causing or committing delay. After hearing parties, learned Tribunal has observed that during course of search no document or paper was found by search party which could reveal that assessee was doing unaccounted business. It was also noted by Tribunal that during course of search, books of account seized by Department were maintained in regular course of business and in regard to those books of account returns of income had already been filed by assessee under s. 139 before conducting search by Department. On facts, Tribunal found that AO could not bring any evidence on record to justify addition of Rs. 13,37,237. Being in general agreement with findings recorded by CIT(A) and learned Tribunal, we are of opinion that present is not fit case for any interference. Even otherwise, for reasons noted aforesaid, we can safely say that present appeal does not deserve any consideration by High Court. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. RAJENDRA KUMAR