JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by N. Kumar J.-The Revenue has preferred these appeals against order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") All these appeals are preferred against common order passed by Tribunal where common question of law is involved. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common judgment. common substantial question of law which is framed in this appeal is as under:- "Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that after search and in consequential survey it was discovered that assessee had adopted modus operandi where there was separation of sales which could be brought to tax in regular assessments and not in block assessment?" search under section 132 of Income-tax Act was conducted on September 12, 2002, in residential premises of assessee. As per copy of panchnama, search was temporarily concluded on September 12, 2002. order under section 132(3) was passed in respect of first floor of residence. search was again commenced on October 7, 2002. It was temporarily concluded on October 7, 2002. As per copy of panchnama dated October 7, 2002, order under section 132(3) was passed wherein inventorised jewellery was kept in safe locker under master bedroom of assessee. Documents were also inventorised. It shows said search was concluded on October 7, 2002. jewellery which was kept under custody of assessee was also inventorised. Another panchnama was drawn on November 8, 2002, in respect of search, which was commenced at 12.10 p.m. and concluded at 1.00 p.m. During proceedings conducted on November 8, 2002, statement of Sri Sudheer Prakash Shetty was recorded last panchnama was drawn on November 8, 2002. Statement of Sri K. Balakrishna was recorded on November 20, 2002. Such statement was not recorded during continuation of search proceedings and it is clear from aforesaid materials no incriminating materials were seized during said search. It is not in dispute that on September 12, 2002, survey was conducted in business premises of assessee. During which incriminating materials were identified and they were impounded. Such material contained extract of savings bank account No. 5612 which was in name of Balakrishna K. Shetty. His statement was recorded on September 12, 2002. said bank account contained heavy deposits and withdrawals. After going through said statement, assessing authority came to conclusion that this bank account contained transactions related to assessee and it contained deposits in respect of unaccounted sales and withdrawals. Therefore, he estimated undisclosed income on basis of deposits made in bank account and applied certain rate of profit and computed undisclosed income. Therefore, block assessment order came to be passed. Aggrieved by said order assessee preferred appeal. first appellate authority held undisclosed income has been computed on basis of documents found during course of survey which is not permissible and, therefore, it set aside said order. Aggrieved by said order Revenue has preferred appeal to Tribunal. Tribunal upholding order of appellate authority after referring to various judgments and after noticing section 158BB prior to amendment and subsequent to amendment held income computed in hands of assessee as undisclosed income could not have been taxed under block assessment and same has to be considered for regular assessment. As said income was not detected during search. Aggrieved by said order of Tribunal Revenue is in appeal. We have heard learned counsel for parties. It is not in dispute that during search no undisclosed income was detected. No seizure of incriminating materials was made. It is only in course of survey, incriminating material was found. That material is not relatable to any incriminating material found during survey. Therefore, on basis of incriminating material found in course of survey merely because same was put to assessee and his statement was recorded subsequent to search, same cannot be held to be relatable to assessee. Therefore, authorities were justified in holding that said material found in course of survey can become subject matter of regular assessment and it cannot become subject matter of block assessment. In that view of matter, we do not see any merits in these appeals. substantial question of law is answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. Appeals are dismissed accordingly. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Yashoda Shetty / Sudheer Prasad Shetty