JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Sanjiv Khanna J.-These appeals by Revenue, Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-1, New Delhi, are being disposed of by this common judgment as identical and connected issues arise for consideration. impugned order dated passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal", for short) is dated September 2, 2011-Shibu Soren v. Asst. CIT [2011] 12 ITR (Trib) 540 (Delhi), and is common order to five cases. By order dated September 4, 2012, following substantial questions of law were admitted for hearing: "(i) Did Tribunal fall into error in holding that amount brought to tax by Assessing Officer is not undisclosed income? (ii) Did Tribunal fall into error in setting aside findings of lower authorities that amounts deposited by assessees with bank were not taxable as income?" These appeals pertain to block assessment periods of ten years beginning from April 1, 1986, to April 26, 1996, in case of Shibu Soren, Suraj Mandal, Shailender Mahto and Simon Marandi. In case of said respondent-assessees, notice under section 158BC of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act", for short) was issued. In case of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Party ("JMM", for short), notice under section 158BD read with section 158BC was issued and block assessment period is from April 1, 1986 to September 27, 1996. In block assessment proceedings of individual assessees, Assessing Officer had made following additions: I. T. A. Name of Additions Block period No. assessee (Rs.) 133 of 1-4-1986 to 26- Shibu Soren 1,16,38,824 2012 4-1996 128 of Simon 1-4-1986 to 26- 53,53,620 53,53,620 2012 Marandi 4-1996 127 of Shailendra 1-4-1986 to 26- 84,12,349 2012 Mahto 4-1996 137 of 1-4-1986 to 26- Suraj Mandal 1,86,34,834 2012 4-1996 In case of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Assessing Officer assessed total income for block period as Rs. 2,36,19,160 on protective basis out of which undisclosed income of Rs. 1,29,98,449 was assessed on protective basis in regular assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of Act for assessment year 1994-95. undisclosed income of assessee for block period added on protective basis was Rs. 1,06,20,711. break-up of total income computed in block assessment on protective basis as per paragraph 8 of impugned order is as under: Financial Interest Deposits (Rs.) Total (Rs.) year (Rs.) 1987-88 Nil Nil Nil 1991-92 Nil Nil Nil 1992-93 10,27,348 16,124 10,46,472 1993-94 38,15,332 74,918 38,90,250 1994-95 1,33,60,000 5,29,016 1,38,89,016 1995-96 23,95,000 10,38,853 34,33,853 1996-97 Nil 1,60,569 10,60,569 1997-98 Nil 32,000 32,000 Up to 27-9- 2,36,19,160 1997 respondent-assessees preferred appeals before Tribunal and have succeeded with block assessment proceedings being annulled or declared void on ground that additions made did not represent undisclosed income and should not have been made in block assessment orders. These additions could have been only made in regular/normal assessment proceedings under section 143(3) or section 147 read with section 148 of Act, as amounts/additions made did not represent undisclosed income as defined in section 158B(b) read with sections 158BA(2), 158BB(1), etc., of Act. In case of JMM, it was held that as no incriminating evidence was found during course of search in case of searched persons, i.e., Shibu Soren, Suraj Mandal, Shailendra Mahto and Simon Marandi, there cannot be any evidence, which justified invoking provisions of section 158BD of Act. In absence of incriminating evidence, block assessment proceeding against JMM were nullity and bad being contrary to law. Search warrants under section 132(1) of Act were issued and executed on Punjab National Bank, Naoroji Nagar, New Delhi, on April 26, 1996, in respect of savings bank accounts ("SB A/cs", for short) and fixed deposit receipt accounts ("FDRs", for short) which are detailed as under: Account Name(s) of holder Nos. 194 Shibu Soren, Rupi, Hemant and Basant 19100 Shibu Soren, Rupi, Hemant and Basant 197 Simon Marandi and Shushila Hansda 19037 Simon Marandi and Shushila Hansda 196 Shailendra Mahto and Abha Mahto 18983 Shailendra Mahto and Abha Mahto 17108 Suraj Mandal Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and 195/spl Shailendra Mahto Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and 18914 Shailendra Mahto These SB A/cs and FDRs were in name of four individual assessees, jointly and individually. These accounts were placed under prohibitory orders under section 132(3) of Act. Subsequently, jurisdiction of five respondent-assessees was transferred to Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Circle-6, New Delhi, under Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Circle-I as per order under section 127 of Act dated December 2, 1996. Thereafter, notices under section 158BC were issued to individual assessees and notice under section 158BD read with section 158BC of Act was issued to JMM. Legal provisions and interpretation In order to appreciate and decide legal controversy, it would be appropriate to first reproduce relevant provisions of Chapter XIV-B "Procedure for assessment and search cases", which would be applicable to respondent-assessees. These are sections 158B clause (b), 158BA, 158BB, 158BC and 158BD of Act. said provisions post-amendment, vide Finance Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995, read as under: "158B. In this Chapter, unless context otherwise requires,-... (b)'undisclosed income' includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in books of account or other documents or transactions, where such money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article, thing, 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. (underlined portion was inserted by Finance Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995) 158BA. Assessment of undisclosed income as result of search.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where after 30th day of June, 1995 search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in case of any person, then, Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess undisclosed income in accordance with provisions of this Chapter. (2) total undisclosed income relating to block period shall be charged to tax, at rate specified in section 113, as income of block period irrespective of previous year or years to which such income relates and irrespective of fact whether regular assessment for any one or more of relevant assessment years is pending or not. Explanation.-For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that- (a) assessment made under this Chapter shall be in addition to regular assessment in respect of each previous year included in block period; (b) total undisclosed income relating to block period shall not include income assessed in any regular assessment as income of such block period; (c) income assessed in this Chapter shall not be included in regular assessment of every previous year included in block period. (3) Where assessee proves to satisfaction of Assessing Officer that any part of income referred to in sub-section (1) relates to assessment year for which previous year has not ended or date of filing return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for any previous year has not expired, and such income or transactions relating to such income are recorded on or before date of search or requisition in books of account or other documents maintained in normal course relating to such previous years, said income shall not be included in block period. (underlined portion was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995) 158BB. Computation of undisclosed income of block period.-(1) undisclosed income of block period shall be aggregate of total income of previous years falling within block period computed, in accordance with provisions of this Act, on basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence, as reduced by aggregate of total income, or, as case may be, as increased by aggregate of losses of such previous years, determined,- (a) where assessments under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded prior to date of commencement of search or date of requisition, on basis of such assessments; (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or in response to notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 but assessments have not been made till date of search or requisition, on basis of income disclosed in such returns; (c) where due date for filing return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed,- (A) on basis of entries as recorded in books of account and other documents maintained in normal course on or before date of search or requisition where such entries result in computation of loss for any previous year falling in block period; or (B) on basis of entries as recorded in books of account and other documents maintained in normal course on or before date of search or requisition where such income does not exceed maximum amount not chargeable to tax for any previous year falling in block period; (ca) where due date for filing return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed, as nil, in cases not falling under clause (c); (d) where previous year has not ended or date of filing return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 has not expired, on basis of entries relating to such income or transactions as recorded in books of account and other documents maintained in normal course on or before date of search or requisition relating to such previous years; (e) where any order of settlement has been made under sub-section (4) of section 245D, on basis of such order; (f) where assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC, on basis of such assessment. Explanation.-For purposes of determination of undisclosed income,- (a) total income or loss of each previous year shall, for purpose of aggregation, be taken as total income or loss computed in accordance with provisions of this Act without giving effect to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32: Provided that in computing deductions under Chapter VI-A for purposes of said aggregation, effect shall be given to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32. (b) of firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of previous years falling within block period shall be income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called: Provided that undisclosed income of firm so determined shall not be chargeable to tax in hands of partners, whether on allocation or on account of enhancement; (c) assessment under section 143 includes determination of income under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1B) of section 143. (2) In computing undisclosed income of block period, provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to'financial year' in those sections shall be construed as references to relevant previous year falling in block period including previous year ending with date of search or of requisition. (3) burden of proving to satisfaction of Assessing Officer that any undisclosed income had already been disclosed in any return of income filed by assessee before commencement of search or of requisition, as case may be, shall be on assessee. (4) For purpose of assessment under this Chapter, losses brought forward from previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against undisclosed income determined in block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in regular assessments. (underlined portion was inserted by Finance Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995. Prior to its substitution, clause (c) read as under: '(c) where due date for filing return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed, as nil)' 158BC. Procedure for block assessment.-Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any person, then,- (a) Assessing Officer shall- (i) in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned after 30th day of June, 1995, but before 1st day of January, 1997, serve notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days; (ii) in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned on or after 1st day of January, 1997, serve notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days but not more than forty-five days, as may be specified in notice return in prescribed form and verified in same manner as return under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142, setting forth his total income including undisclosed income for block period: Provided that no notice under section 148 is required to be issued for purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that person who has furnished return under this clause shall not be entitled to file revised return; (b) Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine undisclosed income of block period in manner laid down in section 158BB and provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) Assessing Officer, on determination of undisclosed income of block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass order of assessment and determine tax payable by him on basis of such assessment. 158BD. Undisclosed income of any other person.-Where Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A, then, books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly." Section 158B(b) is definition provision for purpose of said Chapter, which defines term "undisclosed income". It is inclusive definition and is subject to context otherwise requiring different interpretation. Undisclosed income for purpose of Chapter could include any money, bullion, jewellery or other article, valuable article or thing or even income based on entry in books of account and other documents of transactions, which had not been or would not have been disclosed for purposes of this Act. By retrospective amendment inserted by Finance Act, 2002, with effect from July 1, 1995, any expense, deduction or disallowance claimed under Act, which was found to be false was also treated as undisclosed income. inclusive definition is to be read broadly and in wide manner and should not be given restrictive meaning. expression "undisclosed income" with effect from July 1, 1995, therefore, would mean and include any false expenditure, deduction or allowance claimed under Act but was found to be false, or any money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article or thing, that had not been or would not have been disclosed and also included any income based on entry in books of account or other documents, which had not been disclosed or would not have been disclosed for purposes of this Act. crucial and singularly pre-eminent expression used in said clause is "has not been or would not have been disclosed" for purposes of this Act. We shall be subsequently referring to, in detail, judgment of Supreme Court in Asst. CIT v. A. R. Enterprises [2013] 350 ITR 489 (SC); [2013] 3 SCC 196, but suffice at this stage, it is to notice and reproduce following paragraph from A. R. Enterprises (supra) (page 500 of 350 ITR): "The genesis of issue before us lies within folds of this section. Sections 158BD and 158BC, along with rest of Chapter XIV-B, find application only in event of discovery of'undisclosed income' of assessee.'Undisclosed income' is defined by section 158B as that income'which has not been or would not have been disclosed for purposes of this Act'. Legislature has chosen to define'undisclosed income' in terms of income not disclosed, without providing any definition of'disclosure' of income in first place. We are of view that only way of disclosing income, on part of assessee, is through filing of return, as stipulated in Act, and therefore an'undisclosed income' signifies income not stated in return filed. Keeping that in mind, it seems that Legislature has clearly carved out two scenarios for income to be deemed as undisclosed: (i) where income has clearly not been disclosed, and (ii) where income would not have been disclosed. If situation is covered by any one of two, income would be undisclosed in eyes of Act and, hence, subject to machinery provisions of Chapter XIV-B. second category, viz., where income would not have been disclosed, contemplates likelihood of disclosure; it is presumption of intention of assessee since in concluding that assessee would or would not have disclosed income, one is ipso facto making statement with respect to whether or not assessee possessed intention to do same. To gauge this, however, reliance must be placed on surrounding facts and circumstances of case." aforementioned paragraph, interprets section 158B(b) of Act and lays core and primary emphasis/stress on phrase, "has not been and would not have been disclosed". This part of definition effectuates and underlines object of block assessment proceedings is to bring to tax what was not taxed or would not have been taxed including wrong deduction or disallowance claimed and allowed earlier. retrospective amendment is indication that even entries recorded in books of account or other documents of transaction could become subject matter of undisclosed income if found to be false and, accordingly, deduction or disallowance should not have been allowed or claimed. Section 158BA(1) of Act begins as non obstante provision giving primacy to procedure prescribed under Chapter XIV-B of Act to exclusion of other provisions of Act where search was conducted after June 30, 1995, up to May 31, 2003 (see section 158BI of Act), or books of account or other documents of assessee had been requisitioned in aforesaid period. Sub-section (2) stipulates that rate of tax as specified in section 113 shall apply to income calculated for block period irrespective of previous years to which income relates and irrespective of fact whether regular assessment for any one or more assessment years was pending or not. Explanation which was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995, is cause of some debate, as do subsequent amendments by Finance Act, 2002, again with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995. amendments incorporated by Finance Act, 2002, reflect position that there was greater clarity and understanding, regarding block assessment proceedings when Finance Act, 2002, was enacted. It reflects march of law, as there was greater and better appreciation and amendments negate ill effects and problems noticed in practice (This aspect has been also examined below with reference to decision in N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 733 (Guj). Coming back to Explanation inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995, it declares for removal of doubt that assessment under Chapter XIV-B shall be in addition to regular assessment for each of previous year in block period; total undisclosed income in block period would not include income included in regular assessment; and income assessed under Chapter XIV-B shall not be included in regular assessment of previous years. aforesaid Explanation supports in view that there would be two assessments in cases of search or when section 132A is invoked, i.e., normal/regular assessments under section 143(1) or section 143(3) of Act; and Chapter XIV-B or block assessment. Further, income included in block assessment would not be included in normal assessment and similarly income included in normal assessment would not be included in block assessment. We shall be referring to several judgments relied upon by counsel for respondent-assessee which have decided controversy whether income should be assessed in normal assessment or block assessment by primarily relying upon said Explanation. This indeed is correct interpretation accepted by courts. Thus, there can be regular and block assessments for same period. next question is what could be included or scope and ambit of block assessment and regular assessment. answer lies in conjoint and harmonious reading of sections 158B(b) and 158BB of Act. Section 158BB of Act is procedural provision which deals with computation of undisclosed income but is also substantive provision because it seeks to define what is to be included and can be made subject matter of block assessment. Sub-section (1) refers to evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other information as was available with Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence. It postulates that evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or documents as well as other information relatable to such evidence could be taken into consideration for information relatable to such evidence could be taken into consideration for purpose of undisclosed income for block period. income so calculated shall be increased or reduced by aggregate of total income or loss of previous years which have been determined where assessment under section 143/144/147 of Act had concluded prior to date of commencement of search or date of requisition; but where returns of income have been filed under section 139/142(1)/148 of Act, then such increase or reduction shall be done on basis of income disclosed in such returns. Section 158BB(2)(b) of Act is indicative that returned income, where assessment had not been concluded or made, returned income would be treated as disclosed income and any other income on basis of evidence found during course of search or requisition of books of account or documents with other evidence relatable to such evidence would be treated as undisclosed income and, accordingly, made subject matter of block assessment. controversy that would remain is whether in view of said clause (b) where assessments were pending, additions in block assessment could still be made where no material or evidence was found in search relatable to disclosed income declared in return, or addition should be made in regular assessment. Preponderance of judicial opinion appears to be in favour of normal or regular assessment and not for additions under head "Undisclosed income" in block assessment. Of course, this would not apply where material has been found during course of search or on further enquiry relatable to such material or in cases where expense, deduction or allowance claimed under Act was found to be false. In such cases, additions could be made under sub- section (1) to section 158BB of Act. At this stage, it will be relevant to also refer to section 158BA(3) of Act. Sub-section (3) of section 158BA of Act relates to part of year which had not ended or when date of filing of return under section 139(1) had not expired. In such cases, income of transactions recorded on or before date of search or requisition of books of account or other documents, etc., would not be included in block period. said sub- section has to be read along with section 158B(b) which defines, "undisclosed income". On harmonious construction, it follows that said entry in books of account should not be false, otherwise they would be covered under head "Expense, deduction or allowance which is found to be false". "False" or "falsehood" is strong word and much narrower than word or term "incorrect" or "legally unsustainable". "False" or "falsehood" refers to element of mens rea or bad mental intention and would not relate to claims which might be wrong because of legal interpretation or has to be disallowed because of technical defect and similar reasons. However, as noticed below, this question does not arise for consideration in present case. Clause (c) of section 158BB(1) of Act as enacted was substituted by Finance Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995. substituted clause (c) deals with cases where due date of filing of returns of income had expired but no return of income had been filed, when either of two conditions were satisfied. As per sub-clause (A) of clause (c), income for block assessment would be computed on basis of entries as recorded in books of account and other documents maintained in normal course where such entries result in computation of loss for any previous year falling in block period. Sub-clause (B) would only apply in case where income, as result of entries in books of account and other documents maintained in normal course on or before date of search or requisition did not exceed maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Clause (ca) deals with cases not covered by clause (c), i.e., when no return of income had been filed but income was taxable. Thus, where due date of filing of return had lapsed but no return had been filed and computation was not at loss or below taxable limit, income as per books of account shall be treated as "nil", even if as per books of account and other documents maintained in normal course, income disclosed was above taxable limit. In such cases, irrespective of figures in books of account or documents, income has to be by default, taken as "nil". Clause (ca) would apply only when date of filing of return has expired and return of income has not been filed. Clause (d) would apply to cases where previous year has not ended or date of filing of return under section 139(1) has not expired. In such cases income has to be computed on basis of entries relevant to such income or transactions recorded in books of account or other documents maintained in normal course on or before date of search. We need not, for purpose of present examination, refer to clauses (e) and (f) which deals with cases where there has been settlement order under section 245D(4) or earlier search assessment under section 158BC under clause (c) has been made. Explanation clauses (a) and (b) are not relevant but clause (c) of Explanation is of some relevance. said clause stipulates that assessment under section 143 includes determination under section 143(1) or section 143(1B). Thus, summary assessments are also treated as regular/normal assessment for purpose of sections 158BB. Sub- section (2) of section 158BB states that provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall apply and references to financial year in said sections will be construed as reference to relevant previous year in block period including previous year ending with date of search. Sub-section (3) states that burden of proving that undisclosed income has already been disclosed in return filed before commencement of search, or date of requisition of documents, shall be on assessee. We are not concerned and are not required to deal with subsection (4) of section 158BB of Act. Section 158BC of Act relates to procedure for block assessment and postulates issue of notice for filing of return for block assessment. first proviso states that in such cases, no notice under section 148 was required. Thus, it does away with requirement of notice under section 148 and recording of reasons for same. said proviso is to be read with sub- section (1) of section 158BA which gives overriding primacy to Chapter XIV- B. second proviso states that no revised return for block assessment can be filed. Clause (b) of section 158BC states that Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine undisclosed income for block assessment period and provisions of sections 142, 143(2), 143(3), 144 and 145 shall apply and as per mandate of clause (c), block assessment order has to be passed and tax payable has to be determined. As per clause (d), assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A have to be accordingly dealt with in accordance with section 132B. Section 158BD of Act deals with assessment of undisclosed income of person who has not been searched or person whose books of account or other documents or assets were not seized or requisitioned under section 132A. It requires that Assessing Officer of person who was searched or books of account or documents requisitioned, should record satisfaction note that undisclosed income belonging to third person had been seized or had been uncovered and in such cases assets, books of account, documents, etc., should be handed over to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, who shall proceed under section 158BC and, accordingly, provisions of Chapter XIV-B shall apply. This provision has been interpreted recently by Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC); [2014] 6 SCC 444, where it has been observed as under (page 690 of 362 ITR): "We would certainly say that before initiating proceedings under section 158BD of Act, Assessing Officer who has initiated proceedings for completion of assessments under section 158BC of Act should be satisfied that there is undisclosed income which has been traced out when person was searched under section 132 or books of account were requisitioned under section 132A of Act. This is in contrast to provisions of section 148 of Act where recording of reasons in writing are sine qua non. Under section 158BD existence of cogent and demonstrative material is germane to Assessing Officers' satisfaction in concluding that seized documents belong to person other than searched person is necessary for initiation of action under section 158BD. bare reading of provision indicates that satisfaction note could be prepared by Assessing Officer either at time of initiating proceedings for completion of assessment of searched person under section 158BC of Act or during stage of assessment proceedings. It does not mean that after completion of assessment, Assessing Officer cannot prepare satisfaction note to effect that there exists income-tax belonging to any person other than searched person in respect of whom search was made under section 132 or requisition of books of account was made under section 132A of Act. language of provision is clear and unambiguous. legislature has not imposed any embargo on Assessing Officer in respect of stage of proceedings during which satisfaction is to be reached and recorded in respect of person other than searched person." Facts of present case and applicable provisions It would be now relevant to refer to facts of present cases, finding of Tribunal and contentions of parties. Shailendra Mahto, Suraj Mandal and Simon Marandi had never filed income-tax returns under section 139 of Act between April 1, 1986, and April 26, 1996. They were never assessed to tax for said period. Shailendra Mahto, in fact, did not file returns even on issue of notice under section 158BC of Act. Shibu Soren filed return for assessment year 199495 on March 31, 1996. due date for filing of return for assessment year 1994-95 was June 30, 1994. said return certainly cannot be treated as return under section 139(1) and, therefore, would be inconsequential for purpose of computing income earned in regular/normal assessment. In order to take said return on record, Assessing Officer was required to issue notice under section 147 or section 148 of Act. But said notice was not required in factual matrix of present case because of search on April 26, 1996. As far as JMM is concerned, as noticed above, notice was issued under section 158BD read with section 158BC and block assessment order was passed for period April 1, 1986, to September 26, 1996. JMM had not filed returns from 1988 to 1992 and return for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 were filed on July 12, 1996, and return for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 was filed on July 12, 1996, pursuant to notice under sections 147/148 of Act and for assessment year 1994-95 return was filed on March 31, 1996. This again was after due date for filing of return for that assessment year. However, as case of JMM would fall in different category, it is being accordingly dealt with. block assessment orders in case of individual assessees would show that major and substantial amount of undisclosed income relates to period between April 1, 1993, and March 31, 1994. It was in this period that substantial deposits were found in bank accounts. details and deposits in bank in each of four cases of individual assessees was as under: I. T. A. Name of Assessment Amount No. assessee year deposited (Rs.) 127 of Shailendra 1994-95 46,52,500 2012 Mahto 128 of Simon 1994-95 40,52,500 2012 Marandi 133 of Shibu Soren 1994-95 37,52,500 2012 137 of 1992-93 9,00,000 Suraj Mandal 2012 1993-94 6,90,000 1994-95 37,52,500 Total 1,78,00,000 In view of aforesaid factual position, in present case sub-clause (ca) of section 158BB(1) would be applicable as no return of income was filed by individual assessees before due date of filing of return. income returned, accordingly, would be treated as nil in spite of entries, if any, in books of account or documents. It is correct that Shibu Soren had filed return for assessment year 1994-95 on March 31, 1996, but this would be return under section 139(4) of Act which permits filing of belated return but it would not be return under section 139(1) of Act. Therefore, this return cannot be treated as return filed before due date. Possibly, respondent-assessees could have also claimed applicability of clause (c) of section 158BB in re lation to year of search but onus to prove that benefit of clause (c) would be applicable is on individual assessee. We would, now, like to reproduce legal position as elucidated in A. R. Enterprises (supra), wherein Supreme Court has observed (page 502 of 350 ITR): "Hence, computation of'undisclosed income' for purposes of Chapter XIV-B has to be construed in terms of the'total income' received, accrued, arisen; or which is deemed to have been received, accrued or arisen in previous year, and is computed according to provisions of Act. According to section 139(1) of Act, every person who is assessable under Act, must file return declaring his or her total income during previous year on or before due date, for assessment under section 143 of Act. Hence, the'disclosure of income' is disclosure of total income in valid return under section 139, subject to assessment and chargeable to tax under provisions of Act. It is important to bear in mind that total income is distinct from estimated income, upon basis of which, advance tax is paid by assessee. Advance tax is based on estimated income, and, hence, it cannot result in disclosure of total income assessable and chargeable to tax." It is clearly stated in aforesaid paragraph that due date of filing of return for purpose of section 158BB would be return filed in accordance with section 139(1) of Act. This would obviously not include belated return filed under section 139(4) of Act. In facts of present case, section 158BB(1)(d) would not be applicable as it refers to previous year which has not ended or date of filing of return under section 139(1) has not expired. However, clause (d) also supports construction and interpretation that due date of filing of return refers to section 139(1) and not section 139(4). Time for filing of return for assessment year 1994-95 under section 139(1) had expired on or about June 30, 1994, and return filed by Shibu Soren and for that matter by JMM party relating to assessment year 1995-96 was not under section 139(1) of Act. In present case, block assessment period in case of individual assessees, as noticed above, is February 1, 1986, to September 27, 1996, date of search being September 26, 1996. Thus, date of search was after application of retrospective amendments with effect from July 1, 1995, made by Finance Act, 2002. decision of Supreme Court in A. R. Enterprises (supra) would indicate that retrospective amendments with effect from July 1, 1995, made by Finance Act, 2002, were made applicable, as search had taken place on February 22, 1996, and undisclosed income pertained to period relevant to assessment year 1995-96, due date for filing of return of which was on or before October 31, 1995. However, question of retrospective amendment and whether it would be applicable even for period prior to July 1, 1995, when search had taken place after July 1, 1995, was not specifically addressed and answered. Before us also neither assessee nor Revenue had raised this contention. order of Tribunal is also silent in this regard. Whether additions made relate to undisclosed income? Reasoning of Tribunal and errors made. As has been noticed above, undisclosed income with reference to bank accounts pertain to entries made during period relevant to assessment year 1994-95, i.e., year ending March 31, 1994, or even earlier as in case of Suraj Mandal. However, for these years regular returns of income were not filed. As held in earlier paragraphs in view of earlier clause (c) and substituted clause (c) and clause (ca) of section 158BB(1), failure to file return of income for relevant year, due date of which had expired, would have its consequences and if individual had "undisclosed income" which was taxable, Chapter XIV-B procedure would apply. In view of earlier discussion, it has to be held that in view of amended provisions as well as unamended provisions, legal conclusions and finding of Tribunal are incorrect. In subsequent paragraphs we will examine and answer whether findings of Tribunal can be sustained, on ground that "undisclosed income" became "disclosed" when Revenue became aware of "undisclosed income" as bank accounts and entries therein had come to their information and knowledge. Reliance was placed on fact that in statements of individual assessees recorded before date of search, accounts were acknowledged but it was claimed that money deposited therein was sourced from and belonged to JMM. This also requires us to examine contention raised by respondent- assessees, which has been upheld by Tribunal, that no material or evidence was found during search and, thus, there was no undisclosed income relatable to block assessment period. Tribunal has upheld said contention on basis of statements on oath under section 131 of Act of Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren and Simon Marandi on March 14, 1996, and that of Shailendra Mahto on March 18/19, 1996, wherein aforementioned individuals had deposed on amount lying in various SB A/cs and FDRs maintained in Punjab National Bank, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi. Section 132(1) of Act authorises search and seizure operations. As per clause (a), search may be authorised when designated authority in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that person concerned has not produced or caused to be produced books of account or documents, i.e., he has omitted or failed to produce or caused to be produced books of account and other documents, in response to notice under section 131(1) or section 142(1) of Act. Clause (b) expands scope of clause (a) to enable search of person to whom summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued would not produce or cause to be produced books of account or documents. further requirement being that books of account or documents should be useful or relevant for proceedings under Act. Clause (c) deals with third set of cases where person is in possession of money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article or thing which wholly or partly represents income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed. expression "would not be disclosed" was added by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975. Clause (c) does not deal with books of account or documents but with income and property whereas books of account and documents are referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (b). Legality of search cannot be examined by Tribunal or during course of assessment proceedings and this court while exercising jurisdiction as appellate forum has to assume that search was valid. Validity of search can be examined under writ jurisdiction as order or warrant of search under section 132 is administrative order and is not amenable to correction or challenge in appellate proceedings under Act. Further, search under section 132 can be assessee-based as well as premises-based as is clear from clause (i) of section 132(1) which authorises entry and search in any building, place, etc. It is obvious that search can be assessee-based. In present case, accounts of respondent individual assessees in Punjab National Bank, Naoroji Nagar, New Delhi (PNB, for short) were subjected to search. In way, therefore, it was premises-based search relating to assessee in question. In paragraph 30 of impugned order, Tribunal has held as under (page 562 of 12 ITR (Trib)): "In present case, search was conducted only on various bank accounts of these assessees with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, and details of such FDR and savings bank account which were subjected to search are noted by Assessing Officer on page 7 of assessment order in case of Shri Shibu Soren. This table has been reproduced by us in paragraph 2 above. Hence, in our consider opinion, all other additions made by Assessing Officer, in block assessment of these four persons are liable to be deleted for this reason alone that these are not based on evidence count as result of search and there is no requisition of books of account and other documents in present case. All these other additions are made on basis of material and information available with Assessing Officer as per post-search enquiry but these other material and information are not shown to be relatable to any alleged evidence found in course of search and, hence, all other additions made by Assessing Officer in these block assessment orders are not sustainable. We are taking this view by respectfully following various judgments of hon'ble High Court of Delhi cited by learned authorised representative as has been noted by us in paragraph 14 above..." Before we deal with said findings we would also like to reproduce paragraphs 32 to 37 of impugned order passed by Tribunal (pages 564 to 567 of 12 ITR (Trib)): "Now, regarding addition made by Assessing Officer with reference to deposits in various bank accounts and FDRs with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, there are two relevant aspects. One aspect is this that whether money deposited in bank is income of assessee and second aspect is this that even if it accepted that money deposited in these bank accounts and FDRs is income of assessee, whether such income can be added in block assessment. Regarding first aspect, this is explanation given by learned authorised representative on merits of this addition that amounts deposited in these bank accounts is money of party, i.e., Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and not of assessees and, hence, no addition is called for on account of these deposits in PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, also. Before deciding this aspects, we feel that second aspect is needed to be decided first and first aspect will be required to be decided only if it is found that addition can be made in block assessment in respect of these deposits in bank even if it is accepted that it is income of assessee. Hence, we proceed to decide second aspect first and for doing so, we assume that money deposited in Nauroji Nagar branch of PNB represents income of assessee. Regarding this aspect that no addition can be made in block assessment with respect to various deposits in Nauroji Nagar branch of PNB even if it is income of assessee, we first take note of facts of present case, which are, relevant for deciding this aspect. It was submitted by learned authorised representative of assessees that these bank accounts were duly disclosed by assessees in statement recorded by ADI (Investigation) under section 131 of Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 14, 1996, and on other dates of March, 1996. It is submitted that copy of these statements given by these four persons is available on record and English version of these statement is also famished in paper book. It is submitted that in reply to question No. 3, it was stated by Shri Shibhu Soren that he has two bank accounts out of which one is in PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, and other is in State Bank of India, Sansad Bhavan, New Delhi. It was also stated by him that his wife has no bank account and he does not know of any bank account of his younger son. other question was as to whether he can explain source of these bank accounts. FDRs and investment in car and in reply, it was submitted that FDR of Rs. 30 lakhs in his name and other FDR of Rs. 30 lakhs in name of himself and three other MPs are out of funds of JMM Party. It was also submitted that similar statement was recorded of Shri Simon Marandi also by ADI (Investigation) on same date, i.e., March 14, 1996, and he also stated in reply to question No. 10 that he has one bank account in his name with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi. It was also stated that he does not remember account number and there is one more account in same branch of PNB which is in joint name of himself, Shri Shibhu Soren, MP, Shri Suraj Mandal, MP and Shri Shailendra Mahto, MP and it was also submitted that copies of bank statement of both these bank accounts will be supplied within one month and if there is any other bank account in addition to these two bank accounts, he will send copy of such bank accounts also. When this question was raised, as to what are details of FDRs with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi as per question No. 11, it was submitted in reply that complete details will be provided within one month. One more question was raised as per information of Department he has deposited on August 1, 1993, Rs. 12 lakhs and Rs. 21 lakhs with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, in FDR and there is deposit of Rs. 10,000 in joint savings bank account number 18914 in joint name of Shri Shibhu Soren, Shri Simon Marandi and Shri Shailendra Mahto and there is one FDR No. 195, of Rs. 30 lakhs in joint name of these four persons. In reply, it was submitted that these are money of JMM Party which are lying in joint savings bank account and joint FDRs in name of four MPs and also FD in his personal name. 34. When this query was raised as to why amount in question was not deposited in bank account in account of party JMM, it was submitted in reply that it was done as per decision of party which was taken prior to August 1, 1993. This query was also raised as to from where money came with party, and in reply, it was submitted that they are running agitation for separate Jharkhand State and for this purpose, they are getting donation in this respect and as per decision of party, money was deposited in their personal accounts. This query was also raised as to whether they have names and addresses of persons who have given donation to they have names and addresses of persons who have given donation to party and in reply, it was submitted that there are coupons and receipts and they have names of MLAs, MPs, etc., who collected these donations from general public but they do not have individual names of public. 35. statement of Shri Shailendra Mahto was also recorded by ADI (Investigation) under section 131 on March 18, 1996. In that statement, in reply to question No. 3, it was submitted by Shri Shailendra Mahto that there is one bank account with State Bank of India, Parliament Annexe, New Delhi, which is in his name and it was opened in year 1990 when he was elected as MP. It was also submitted that there is one savings bank account No. 18983 with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, and this is in his name and was opened on August 27, 1993. It was also submitted that he has asked for statement from bank and he can give details after going through bank statement. When query was raised regarding FDRs with bank it was submitted that there is one FDR at PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, and FDR No. is 196 dated August 1, 1993, and it was also submitted that amount of Rs. 39.80 lakhs was deposited in FDR and, subsequently, on October 8, 1993, amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was transferred from his FDR account to savings bank account No. 18983. When he was regarding source of deposits of Rs. 39.80 lakhs in FDR it was replied that this money is belonging to JMM Party and same was collected by party as donation in various public meetings and since he was General Secretary of party, this amount was deposited in his name in bank. 36. Similarly, statement of Shri Suraj Mandal was also recorded by ADI (Investigation), New Delhi, under section 131 on March 14, 1996. Question No. 4 was regarding details of bank accounts of himself and his family members. In reply he has narrated full details of various bank accounts which include even account with State Bank of India, Karmatand which is in his name and there is one account with State Bank of India at Patna, Vidhan Sabha Branch in which his salary as MLA was being deposited. It was also submitted that there is one account with State Bank of India, Godda Branch and it was also submitted that there is one account with State Bank of India, Sansad Bhavan Branch where his salary as MP was being deposited. It was also submitted that there is one savings bank account in his name with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, in which money lying was of JMM Party. It was also submitted that there is joint savings bank account with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, which is in joint name four JMM MPs. It was also submitted that there is one FDR in his hand and in name of his wife at SBI Karmatand and second FDR with PNB in joint name of himself and other three JMM MPs. When question was raised regarding balance in various bank accounts, it was stated by him regarding SBI Karmatand, SBI Vidhan Sabha Branch and SBI Godda and SBI Sansad Bhavan Branch. Regarding PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, it was submitted that in that account, Rs. 46 lakhs was deposited in year 1993 which may be around Rs. 52 lakhs on date of statement after including interest and this money is belonging to party, i.e., JMM Party. It was also stated that there is one joint account with same branch of PNB in joint name of four MPs and Rs. 10,000 was deposited in bank account in beginning. 37. From above narration of these four statements recorded by ADI (Investigation) in March, 1996, i.e., prior to date of search, it is clear that all these four MPs have clearly brought out relevant facts and they have duly disclosed fact of various bank accounts with PNB, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, and from some of statements, it is also coming out that even before statements were recorded, concrete information was available with Department regarding existence of these bank accounts, amounts and money deposited in these bank accounts along with relevant dates of such deposits because in some of question itself, details of bank account along with date and amount of money deposited, etc., were stated and query was raised for its source, etc., and these facts show that full details were available with Department." aforesaid reasoning of Tribunal is core of impugned decision and would indicate that Tribunal has only decided second aspect, i.e., whether or not deposits in Punjab National Bank, Naoroji Nagar, New Delhi, could have been made subject matter of addition as undisclosed income in block assessment proceedings. Thereafter, reference was made to statements recorded under section 131 on March 14, 1996, and on March 18/19, 1996. gists of statements given by different assessees have been quoted. What is clearly noticeable is that assessees throughout had pleaded and claimed that money deposited in bank accounts did not belong to them but was money of JMM. Thus, Tribunal has come to conclusion that before date of search, full relevant facts had been brought to and duly disclosed and, therefore, deposits would not and cannot be treated as undisclosed income under section 158B(b) read with section 158BB. According to us, aforesaid conclusion of Tribunal is clearly fallacious for several reasons which are elucidated below: (1) statements recorded under section 131 of Act were precursor to search and cannot be read in isolation without reference to attending circumstances. attending circumstances in present case were that no return of income had been filed by individual assessees for block period except return by Shibu Soren for assessment year 1994-95 which was filed on March 31, 1996, under section 139(4), i.e., beyond time or due date and few days before search. enquiries had then started. (2) stand taken by each of four individual assessees, was that money in FDRs and SB A/cs did not belong to them but belonged to JMM, political party. said factum had to be verified and ascertained. In case money belonged to four assessees, it would be their undisclosed income. In addition, legal effect and impact of section 158BB, when no return of income has been filed, as elucidated by Supreme Court in case of A. R. Enterprises (supra) is to contrary. (3) If evidence and material found during search and subsequent enquiries established that money belonged to individual assessees, and not JMM, amount would be undisclosed income under section 158B(b) of Act. (4) factual impact or consequence of search is to unearth material/ evidence and ascertain true and correct facts. In spite of statements recorded under section 131 of Act, it is not unusual or uncommon for assessee to change his stand and stance during course of assessment proceedings. Further, truth or veracity of statements had to be verified, i.e., whether money belonged to individual assessees or to political party JMM. This required evidence like examination and verification of entries in bank accounts; beneficiaries who were recipients/credited money from bank accounts; how was money utilised ; whether individual assessees or their family members were also beneficiaries of utilisation, etc. This required documents and evidence. This aspect was highlighted and was argued on behalf of Revenue before Tribunal as is ascertainable from paragraph 24 of impugned order wherein contention of Revenue was noticed. For sake of convenience, we are reproducing paragraph 24 of impugned order (page 560 of 12 ITR (Trib)): "Regarding this contention that income as already disclosed under section 131 on March 14, 1996, and, hence, there is no undisclosed income, it was submitted by her that statement made under section 131 of Income-tax Act, 1961, during pre-search inquiry which resulted in issuance of search warrant cannot be deemed to be true and full disclosure of undisclosed income and same in any case is not true and full disclosure. She submitted that as per section 158B(b) undisclosed income is gold, bullion, money, etc., or income which has not been or would have not been disclosed for purpose of Act. She submitted that, admittedly, no return has ever been filed by these assessees and, thus, there is no question of lying disclosed in present cases. She submitted that mere statement as part of pre-search inquiry cannot amount to disclosure of income possessed by assessee chargeable to tax. She submitted that main issue is whether such income was ever disclosed by assessee at any stage." (5) Noticeably, JMM had not filed income-tax returns for any of assessment years subject matter of block assessment order, except return filed on July 12, 1996, in response to notice under section 148 of Act that relating to assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. As far as individual assessees are concerned, none of them filed incometax returns under section 139 apart from Shibu Soren who filed return for assessment year 1994-95 on March 31, 1996, under section 139(4), i.e., assessment year 1994-95 on March 31, 1996, under section 139(4), i.e., belated return. This return was subsequently revised on April 23, 1996, i.e., 3 days before search at Punjab National Bank, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, which was made on April 26, 1996. In continuation of said searches in case of individual assessees, search and seizure operations under section 132(1) of Act were conducted at office and residential premises of M/s. Anjali Jain and Associates, Chartered Accountants, located at Ranchi, Patna and other places in Bihar and Jharkhand where books of account of political party JMM were seized. JMM was issued notice under section 158BD of Act on January 20, 1997. block assessment order under section 158BD read with section 158BC records that JMM's income for block period was protectively assessed at Rs. 2,36,19,160 out of which Rs. 1,29,98,449 was assessed on protective basis in regular assessment proceedings for assessment year 1994-95 and balance amount of Rs. 1,06,20,711 was assessed as undisclosed income for block period. assessment order in case of individual assessees record basis and reasons that money in SB A/cs and FDRs did not belong to JMM, who had claimed that money was received as donations. Reasons given by Assessing Officer were based on search material/ evidence which included material/evidence collected during and after search at M/s. Anjali Jain and Associates. These can be crystallised as under : (A) JMM Party did not require money for party activities in Delhi; (B) There was no justification in opening bank account in individual names, if money belonged to party; (C) Shailendra Mahto in his statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before Metropolitan Magistrate accepted that money in his SB A/cs and FDRs belonged to him and was received for voting in Parliament in no confidence motion moved in July, 1993. He also accepted that Suraj Mandal and Shibu Soren had received similar amounts; (D) purported resolution passed by JMM on July 11, 1993, was disbelieved for various reasons including (a) there was no reason and cause for JMM to give personal loan to individuals; (b) no interest had been paid ; (c) alleged resolution for loan was self-serving and belatedly attested thus indicating that it was sham and was "introduced" subsequently; (d) books of account of JMM did not reveal any loan account; (e) in return filed by JMM on March 31, 1996, for assessment year 1994-95, Rs. 30,00,000 relating to FDRs in joint holding of four "individual assessees" was not included; (f) Sushil Kumar who had introduced four "individual assessees" to bank, in his statement had confessed that money was brought in suitcase which carried slips of Canara Bank, Bangalore, hence money did not represent alleged donations; (g) donation slips as propounded were printed later on and not during relevant period by M/s. Seth Art Printers. M/s. R. R. Papers Stores, Bokaro could not have printed donation slips as suggested; (h) donation receipts did not mention names of person who had received donation or name of donor; (i) one S. Bhattacharya who had joined JMM in April, 1994, could not have handled donations in July, 1993, as was pleaded; (j) Ms. Anjali Jain, chartered accountant, had accepted and admitted that she did not verify donation coupons. (k) books of account, etc., including cash books allegedly recovered and seized were prepared and written belatedly and were not contemporaneously recorded; (l) cash books for assessment years 1993-94 consisted of three sets, locally bound. It bore signature of S. Bhattacharya dated April 2, 1993, whereas he had joined party in April, 1994. In some entries in cash book for financial year 1993-94, year mentioned and written was 1995; (m) Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report revealed and opined that ledger and cash book were interpolated. We would now, like to reproduce paragraph 29 of impugned order which reads as under (page 561 of 12 ITR (Trib)): "We have considered rival submissions, perused material on record and have gone through judgments cited by both sides. As per provisions of section 158BA(2) and its Explanation, block assessment under Chapter XIV-B is in addition to regular assessment and if any addition is made in such regular assessment or is required to be or is eligible to be made in regular assessment then such income cannot be added in block assessment. This is by now settled position of law that in case of block assessment proceedings, addition can be made on basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other material and such other material or information which are available with Assessing Officer and are relatable to such evidence found as result of search this is also settled position by now that for purpose of addition in block assessment under chapter XIV-B, which will result into levy of higher rate of tax of 60 per cent. incriminating material found in course of search is to be considered and not each and every thing found in course of search. For example, regular books of account maintained by businessman are also found in course of search but those books are not considered to be incriminating material because existence of regular books is in knowledge Revenue although its contents are not known to Revenue. But still, in relation to entries in those books, no addition is to be made in block assessment and addition, if any, is to be made in regular assessment only. This is also settled position that whether regular assessment is actually made or not or whether any addition in regular assessment made or not is also not relevant and if any addition is required to be made in regular assessment, it cannot be added in block assessment only for this reason that no regular assessment was made or that no addition was made in such regular assessment. In present case, neither any return of income was filed by assessee under section 139 nor any notice was issued by concerned Assessing Officer under section 142(1) or under section 148 asking assessee to file return of income and only notice issued was under section 158BC. In backdrop of this legal and factual position, now we examine other facts of present case." We would like to deal with said reasoning sentence-wise and in detail. observation that block assessment is in addition to regular assessment is correct but finding that any addition is required to be or is eligible to be made in regular assessment cannot be added in block assessment as made in regular assessment cannot be added in block assessment as universal affirmative proposition is incorrect. It would depend upon whether or not income concerned is undisclosed income as defined in section 158B(b) read with applicable sub-section to section 158BB of Act. We have already dealt with observations of Tribunal and highlighted ratio decidendi of decision of Supreme Court in A. R. Enterprises (supra). As recorded above, section 158B(b) is to be read along with applicable clause of section 158BB of Act. Similarly, observations with regard to regular books of account would depend upon factual position. In present case, no books of account were maintained by individual assessees and books of accounts maintained by JMM party have been subject matter of severe adverse comments and observations as to their authenticity. In A. R. Enterprises (supra), it has been clearly observed that books of account might be relevant with reference to year in which search had taken place or where there was still time to file return of income for concerned assessment year. It might be relevant where return of income for period included in block assessment stands filed. However, where due date for filing of return has expired, consequences may be different. Similarly, observation whether regular assessment was actually made or not, is not uniformly correct and would depend upon facts whether due date of filing of return under section 139(1) has expired but no return of income has been filed, as non-filing of return may have its own consequence. Nature and source of money on how it was earned, explanation offered, etc., would also make considerable difference. In given case, depending upon factual matrix, it could represent undisclosed income. This aspect has not been considered and regarded by Tribunal though it is noticed that no return under section 139(1) had been filed by individual assessees. Thus, there is fundamental fallacy in reasoning given by Tribunal to hold that no addition could have been made in block assessment proceedings for want of undisclosed income. Tribunal ignored position that four individual assessees had not filed returns of income and, therefore, section 158BB(1) clause (ca) of Act would be attracted. said clause has to be harmoniously read with section 158B(b) of Act. Further, statements of four individual assessees were recorded on March 14, 1996/March 19, 1996, but they, i.e., "individual assessees" had claimed that money lying in SB A/cs or FDRs belonged to JMM and did not belong to them. Thus, factum that details of SB A/cs and FDRs were made available would not make any difference. search undertaken had revealed several incriminating evidence/material relating to opening and operation of bank accounts and on how money was utilised, etc. These details were relevant to examine and consider contention of respondent individual assessee that money did not belong to them but to political party, JMM. It would be, therefore, incorrect or improper to state that search did not reveal or unearth relevant material or evidence relating to undisclosed income as defined under section 158B(b) of Act. This takes us to judgments relied upon by counsel for assessee and we would like to examine whether findings recorded above deviate from legal position elucidated in these judgments in light of decision of Supreme Court in A. R. Enterprises (supra). We would first begin with judgment of Gujarat High Court in N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. (supra). At outset, we notice that this judgment does not take into consideration retrospective amendment made by Finance Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995. In said case, writ petitions were filed by persons who had been subjected to search and block assessment orders on ground that once block assessment orders had been passed, notice under section 143(2) of Act, for regular/normal assessment cannot be issued and sustained. High Court held that there could be both regular or normal assessment and assessments under Chapter XIV-B of Act, recording reason that Chapter XIV-B was specific provision in search cases and provides for assessment of undisclosed income as result of search, and these proceedings do not disturb regular/normal proceedings already made for previous year. Block assessment proceeding were only intended to sniff out what had remained hidden and had not been disclosed by assessee. There was no overlapping in nature of block assessment made of undisclosed income and in nature of block assessment made of undisclosed income and regular/normal assessment under section 143(3) of Act. Specific reference was made to sub-section (2) of section 158BA of Act. Similarly, with regard to pending regular assessment proceedings, it was stated that they would not be frozen or substituted by block assessment of undisclosed income. aforesaid observations will be applicable for period even after July 1, 1995, subject to legislative intendment to contrary on scope and ambit of block assessment in view of amended provisions as has been observed by Supreme Court in A. R. Enterprises (supra). Further, in case of individual assessees, there were no pending proceedings on date when block assessment notice was served and in this context that decision of Supreme Court in A. R. Enterprises (supra) is more apposite. N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. (supra) did not deal with situation where no return of income had been filed and due date of filing of return for said period had expired. It is clear that Gujarat High Court in said case was not examining legal consequence and scope and ambit of undisclosed income in such cases, which is clear from following paragraphs (page 742 of 234 ITR): "If pending regular assessment proceedings were to be frozen and got substituted by assessment of undisclosed income of block period, Legislature would have been specific on that aspect and would have made it clear that pending regular assessment proceedings should be dropped. provisions of this Chapter do not either expressly or by necessary implication even remotely indicate that regular assessment proceedings of previous year covered in block period, were required to be stayed or dropped or substituted by proceedings of this Chapter. Under sub-section (3) of section 158BA, where date of filing return of income under section 139(1) for any previous year has not expired, and income of that previous year or transactions relating to such income are duly recorded, then such income is not required to be included in block period. This obviously means that regular assessment of that previous year which has remained pending, will proceed notwithstanding that it was falling in block period. same would be case where block period includes only part of previous year of which return is filed for regular assessment, and regular assessment can proceed notwithstanding that undisclosed income for part of that previous year was within block period." There is another reason why we have referred to decision in N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. (supra) at first instance. Tribunal in impugned order has specifically referred and quoted following passage from decision of Supreme (Delhi High) Court in L. R. Gupta v. Union of India [1992] 194 ITR 32 (Delhi) (page 47): "Sub-clause (c) refers to money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles which, either wholly or partly, should have been income of assessee which has not been disclosed for purpose of Act. said sub-clause pertains only to movable and not immovable assets. Secondly, it pertains to those assets which, wholly or partly, represent what should have been his income. expression income'which has not been, or would not be, disclosed for purposes of Income-tax Act' would mean that income which is liable to tax but which assessee has not returned in his income-tax return or made known to Income-tax Department. subclause itself refers to this as'undisclosed income or property'. In our opinion, words'undisclosed', in that context, must mean income which is hidden from Department. Clause (c) would refer to cases where assessee knows that movable asset is income or represents income which is taxable but which asset is not disclosed to Department for purpose of taxation. Those assets must be or represent hidden or secreted funds or assets. Where, however, existence of money or asset is known to Income-tax Department and where case of assessee is that said money or valuable asset is not liable to be taxed, then, in our opinion, provisions of sub-clause (c) of section 132(1) would not be attracted. assessee is under no obligation to disclose in his return of income all moneys which are received by him which do not partake of character of income or income liable to tax. If assessee receives, admittedly, gift from relation or earns agricultural income which is not subject to tax, then he would not be liable to show receipt of that money in his income-tax return. Non-disclosure of same would not attract provisions of section 132(1)(c). It may be that opinion of assessee that receipt of such amount is not taxable may be incorrect and, in law, same may be taxable but where Department is aware of existence of such asset or receipt of such income by assessee, then Department may be fully justified in issuing notice under section 148 of Act, but no action can be taken under section 132(1)(c). authorisation under section 132(1) can be issued if there is reasonable belief that assessee does not want Income-tax Department to know about existence of such income or asset in effort to escape assessment. Section 132(1)(c) has been incorporated in order to enable Department to take physical possession of those movable properties or articles which are or represent undisclosed income or property. words'undisclosed income' must mean income which is liable to be taxed under provisions of Income-tax Act but which has not been disclosed by assessee in effort to escape assessment.'Not disclosed' must mean intention of assessee to hide existence of income or asset from Income-tax Department while being aware that same is rightly taxable." L. R. Gupta's case (supra) related to validity of search under section 132 and whether pre-conditions stipulated in sub-section (1) clauses (a), (b) and (c) were satisfied. While examining clause (c) of section 132(1) of Act, Supreme (Delhi High) Court observed that what was disclosed and was known to Department was not hidden and could not be treated as undisclosed income, either wholly or partly. said observations were made in context of clause (c) of section 132(1) of Act. Search and seizure has serious and deleterious consequences as it impinges on right of privacy. In N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. (supra), reference was also made to clause (c) of section 132(1) and similarity of two expressions "undisclosed income or property" mentioned in section 132(1) clause (c) and section 158B(b) of Act was duly noticed but Bench clarified that "the concept of undisclosed income as defined in clause (b) of section 158B of Act is, however, wider and different as we will later notice" (see page 740 of ITR publication). said sentence, however, it appears was not highlighted before Tribunal and, sentence, however, it appears was not highlighted before Tribunal and, therefore, not considered. Thus, this decision holds that it would not be correct to apply ratio or reasoning in aforesaid paragraph of L. R. Gupta (supra) to block assessment. This is correct and right as scope and confines of block assessment has been highlighted by Supreme Court in A.R. Enterprises (supra) and is broader and wider. Section 158B(b) has to be read with section 158BB(1) harmoniously. Apposite would be to refer to following observations in N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. (supra), which read (page 746 of 234 ITR): "In cases where appeals, revisions and references are decided from regular assessment orders of previous years included in block period, decisions may have effect of disturbing assessment made by Assessing Officer. provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 153, prescribing time limit for making orders of assessment do not apply to assessments, reassessments or recomputations made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in order made under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 or in order of any court in proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference as laid down in section 153(3)(ii) of Act. Obviously, therefore, regular assessment already made will have to be brought in tune with such orders or may even have to be done de novo, if so ordered, in which event it would amount to regular assessment still pending. For example, under section 251, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul assessment or he may set aside assessment and refer case back to Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment. Tribunal has, in deciding appeals, wide powers to pass orders thereon as it thinks fit, as provided in section 254(1). After decision on questions of law by High Court or Supreme Court, Tribunal has to pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of case conformably to such judgment, as provided in section 260 of Act. Commissioner also has revisional powers under section 263 to enhance or modify assessment, or cancel it and direct fresh assessment. All these may entail changes in original assessment or fresh regular assessments in respect of previous years falling in block period. fact that block assessment of undisclosed income is pending or is made, will not take away all these statutory powers, exercise of which would affect regular assessments already made or may entail fresh regular assessment for previous year falling in block period for assessment of undisclosed income. It would produce startling results of denuding all these authorities of their statutory powers in respect of regular assessments made or to be made for previous years falling in block period. That surely is not intended by Legislature and no such disastrous result is contemplated by introducing special procedure for assessment of search cases in Chapter XIV-B. special procedure for assessment of undisclosed income as result of search, which is intended to target that income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for purposes of Act, is not meant to provide insulation to such assessees from consequences of regular assessments made or to be made for any previous year falling under block period. powers of regular assessment are kept intact and so are all appellate, revisional and other powers affecting such regular assessment and all statutory consequences flowing from exercise of such powers would follow along side of this special assessment procedure devised for dealing with undisclosed income as result of search. It, therefore, follows that in inquiry under section 143(3) for regular assessment which was pending when block assessment was made, Assessing Officer who comes across evidence and material which was not found or made available in process of block assessment, cannot ignore same and he will be duty bound to make regular assessment taking into account such evidence and material gathered in enquiry under section 143(3) to ensure that proper assessment of total income is made and tax determined on basis of such assessment. assessee who had not disclosed and did not intend to disclose income or property, which fact is detected in search, cannot acquire immunity from being assessed to still other income or property which did not come to surface as his undisclosed income from evidence found and material available at time of block assessment, but is now found by virtue of enquiry made under section 143(2)(iii) of Act for regular assessment showing that assessee had understated income or had computed excessive loss or underpaid tax even after taking into account fact that his undisclosed income for block period was separately assessed and taxed at higher rate of 60 per cent. was charged thereon. immunity from levy of penalties attached to undisclosed income determined in block assessment have no relevance to levy of interest and penalties that may follow regular assessment in respect of understatement of income or computation of excessive loss made by assessee, which are not relatable to undisclosed income determined and taxed in separate proceedings." aforesaid paragraph notices that undisclosed income relating to block period has to be taxed at 60 per cent. as per rate prescribed under section 113 of Act irrespective of fact whether regular assessment for any one or more years was pending. Reference was specifically made to immunity from specified interest and penalty contemplated by section 158BF but only in respect of undisclosed income determined in block assessment and had no bearing on assessment made otherwise, i.e., regular/normal assessment. However, legal position underwent change with enactment of section 158BFA by way of Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1997, with effect from January 1, 1997, in respect of searches undertaken under section 132 or requisition under section 132A on or after January 1, 1997, authorising levy of interest and penalty in certain cases. However, section 158BFA would not be applicable as search in present case was prior to January 1, 1997. At this stage, we would now like to deal with and examine judgments of Delhi High Court. In CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain [2001] 250 ITR 141 (Delhi), this court dismissed appeal filed by Revenue holding that there was difference between regular assessment and block assessment under Chapter XIV-B. Assessing Officer in block assessment order had proceeded without enumerating and really addressing himself to scope of Chapter XIV- B and section 158BB of Act. He had relied upon report of special auditor who had given different colour to existing facts/details which were already subject matter of regular/ normal assessments of relevant years. There was no search material to justify and interfere with regular assessments. It is clear from said decision that court was dealing with situation where regular assessments were made dealing with certain aspects and block assessment order reversed said findings recorded in regular assessments without there being any searched material to justify different stance. only basis for reversing regular assessment was report of special auditor. In CIT v. Vishal Aggarwal [2006] 283 ITR 326 (Delhi), it was noticed that assessee had filed returns disclosing gifts and had furnished necessary documents in support. There was search and seizure operation, (it appears subsequently) in premises of assessee's father but no incriminating material was found relating to assessee. Assessing Officer had resorted to section 158BC (possibly, read with section 158BD) and treated gift as concealed income and attempt at laundering money. There was no material or information which was discovered to indicate that gifts were bogus and/or represented undisclosed income. No such material information or document was found even in post-search enquiry. Further, post-search enquiry was unconnected with searched material or information. Thus, gifts which had already been declared in returns filed, it was held were outside preview of block assessment. This decision will not help individual assessee in present case as we have noticed that they had not filed returns of income. We have already referred to material found as result of search and how and in what manner it related to question whether income/entries lying in bank accounts belonged to and represented undisclosed credit or assets of individual assessee. In CIT v. Jupiter Builders P. Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 287 (Delhi), there is detailed discussion on provisions of Chapter XIV-B, and it has been held that said Chapter was applicable to undisclosed income, i.e., income which had not been or would not have been disclosed and such income should be unearthed as result of search or requisition. block period in said case was from 1987-88 to 1997-98, and additions related to assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98. Addition of Rs. 4,00,000 relating to assessment year 1993-94 was expense which had been debited in profit and loss account, which was accepted by Revenue in regular assessment. assessee had also produced documents and confirmations of recipient. Similarly, in assessment year 1994-95, payments received from buyers and receipts and documents produced were duly noticed in regular assessment. For aforesaid two years, no material was found during search to show that accounts or entries of Rs. 4,00,000 each were bogus or were not genuine. With regard to assessment year 1995-96, wrong addition of Rs. 50,000 was made and same was deleted. assessment year 199798 was year in which search had taken place and in block assessment order addition of Rs. 28,92,000 was made. With regard to addition of Rs. 1,00,000, it was noticed that addition had been made in case of third party and appellate authorities were justified in deleting addition in hands of assessee. Another addition of Rs. 2,20,000, it was noticed was deleted primarily on facts. last addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made on estimate basis towards unexplained investment in immovable properties, was also deleted on ground that it was based on report of Valuation Officer and assessee had relied upon proviso to section 142A that Assessing Officer could not have referred matter for valuation. Since no valuation had been ordered, neither Assessing Officer was competent as expert to make assessment and that too in proceedings under Chapter XIV-B. This court in said case has observed that Chapter XIV-B was not concerned with income which has already been disclosed and in respect of which regular assessment proceedings stood concluded, were pending or in respect of which time for filing of return on date of search/requisition had not expired. In last set of cases, entries should be duly recorded in books of account before date of search. Thus, block assessment proceedings cannot be used as opportunity to reopen, concluded assessment or reassess return of income by fresh look at disclosed facts and figures unless they were found to be false in case of search or requisition. In present case, no return of income under section 139(1) of Act was filed by individual assessees and, therefore, there was no disclosure of income. Further, facts were unearthed during search and related subsequent enquiries to show that stand of individual assessees in statements recorded under section 131 of Act were not correct and rather false as per assertions made by Assessing Officer. In Jupiter Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it has been held that regular assessment proceedings and block assessment proceedings operate in different fields, legal ratio which is undisputed and with which we respectfully agree. Further, term "undisclosed income" stands for that income which had not been disclosed or had been concealed and unearthed or has nexus and relatable to information and material gathered in search and subsequent enquiries thereafter. Scope and what should be treated as "undisputed income" has to be determined with reference to section 158B clause (b) and section 158BB of Act. In present case, as no return of income had been filed under section 139(1) and incriminating material was found during search, as such "the undisclosed entries" would be "undisclosed" in light of statutory provisions and as elucidated by Supreme Court in case of A. R. Enterprises (supra). In CIT v. Vivek Dougall [2008] 305 ITR 270 (Delhi), search was conducted in premises of person named Gulati on July 8, 1999, and certain documents were seized. Subsequently, notice was issued to assessee in question under section 158BC, who filed return declaring nil undisclosed income. However, much before date of search, assessee had filed regular return for assessment year 1988-89 and had disclosed certain amounts received as non-compete fee and claimed that they were not chargeable to tax. In block assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer brought said amount to tax, holding that same was actually paid for change of shareholding and even otherwise "noncompete fee" was revenue receipt and, therefore, chargeable to tax. court held that said addition could not have been made in block assessment proceedings as entire facts were disclosed by assessee well before search carried out in premises of Gulati and, therefore, same could not have been made subject matter of block assessment but could be examined only in regular assessment. In said case, noticeably regular return of income had been filed disclosing full facts and position was taken. Nothing to indicate that position taken or facts stated were false was unearthed during search. In present case, no return under section 139(1) of Act had been filed. Further, incriminating material as per Assessing Officer was found during course of search and has been relied upon in block assessment order. In CIT v. Mukesh Luthra [2011] 337 ITR 41 (Delhi), Revenue was successful in appeal filed before High Court, as it was held that addition should have been made in regular assessment proceedings and not as "undisclosed income" in block assessment. In said case, search had taken place on August 30, 2001, and block assessment order was passed on October 31, 2003. Subsequently, during course of assessment proceedings/orders passed in case of third person, it was observed and came to knowledge of Revenue that concern stated to be belonging to that third person was in fact benami concern of searched person, i.e., respondent-assessee in appeal before High Court. Thereafter, in regular assessment order dated February 27, 2004, substantive addition on account of income earned from benami concern was made in hands of respondent-assessee therein and protective assessment was made in assessment order passed in case of third person. On appeal, these additions were deleted by first appellate authority and order was confirmed by Tribunal who held that issue should have been examined in block assessment order and not in regular assessment. merits of addition were not examined. This court observed that during search no evidence was unearthed relating to concern in question, to show that assessee was benami owner and income earned represented or was his income. Revenue, therefore, succeeded in High Court on basis that question of benami ownership came to light and their knowledge after passing of block assessment order. In said case, in fact proceedings under sections 147/148 were initiated pursuant to said new information and facts. said decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable and does not support case of respondent-assessees herein. Now, we would like to deal with decisions of other High Courts cited before us by counsel for assessee. CIT v. Shambhulal C. Bachkaniwala [2000] 245 ITR 488 (Guj) follows decision in N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. (supra) pointing out distinction between undisclosed income which could be made subject matter of block assessment proceedings and normal income which could be subject matter of regular assessment. In CIT v. N. T. John [2003] 259 ITR 224 (Ker), Division Bench of Kerala High Court reversed judgment of single judge N. T. John v. CIT reported in [1997] 228 ITR 314, relying upon N. R. Paper and Board Ltd. (supra) and decision of Calcutta High Court in Caltradeco Steel Sales P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2000] 243 ITR 643 (Cal), holding that Chapter XIV-B was for assessment of undisclosed income found as result of search and assessment under section 143(3) pertains to disclosed income, i.e., income which has already been declared in return or when it pertains to period for which due date of filing of return has not expired, income was already included and shown in books of account. This judgment also does not go against what we have held or support assessees. contention. Kerala High Court in CIT v. Smt. C. Sabira [2011] 338 ITR 226 (Ker), went into several questions including addition made on estimation towards cost of construction in block assessment order. assessee had duly shown cost of construction in regular returns. It was observed that undisclosed income must be determined on basis of undisclosed income unearthed during search and also which were relatable to such evidence. During search, no such material or information came to light to justify finding about cost of construction that was estimated. In present case, we have noticed that during course of search, as noticed in block assessment orders, several material/evidence came to light which would show that amounts deposited or entries in bank accounts belonged to assessee and not to party, JMM. Further, individual assessees had not filed returns of income for relevant period, for which due date under section 139(1) had long lapsed. In last, we will deal with three judgments of Madras High Court. In CIT v. G. K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad), appeal filed by CIT v. G. K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad), appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed on ground that there was pre-search survey in which incriminating material was found but this material could not have been utilised in block assessment proceedings. reason elucidated being that this material/information was available with Revenue at time of search. With all due respect, we have reservations and cannot agree with aforesaid broad proposition. It is not uncommon or unknown that surveys could and do lead to search operations, when conditions of sub-section (1) of section 132 of Act are satisfied. Such water tight compartmentalisation and interpretation may not be justified, as search operations are undertaken only when there is information or basis regarding undisclosed income, etc. Presence and knowledge of said perceptible information may well be prerequisite for conducting search. Logically and as sequitur if ratio in G. K. Senniappan (supra) is strictly applied, no block assessment can be made in respect of information/material available at time of search and even when this information/material was foundation of search. In fact, when full and complete details/ documents are available, search may not be required or necessitated. expression "undisclosed income" would refer to disclosures made by assessee in form of return of income of past years or entries in books of account and documents of current year, when due date has not expired. Something which is hidden and not disclosed by assessee, would not lose and forgo its character as undisclosed income because Revenue authorities have come to know or have collected some or partial information or details regarding said undisclosed income at any time before or prior to search. However, if material found during survey has nothing to do with material and evidence found during course of search, position may be different, depending upon factual matrix. Moreover, in present case, there was no prior survey resulting in search and we have already dealt with contention that statements under section 131 of Act were recorded and whether this constituted information and knowledge to comprehend and hold that "income" had been disclosed and have rejected said contention for various reasons set out in paragraphs 28 to 30 above. CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar [2008] 300 ITR 152 (Mad) was case of survey on interior decorator/builder, who had constructed assessee's house. allegation was that assessee had paid more than Rs. 95 lakhs to contractor/interior decorator in cash, which was duly recorded in his books, but in books of assessee only cheque payments were recorded. search and survey were conducted on same day, but High Court held that at time of search factum that house was constructed/built was known to Revenue and factum that cash payments were made came to knowledge during course of survey. It was held that material or information found during course of survey operation, was not relatable to any material found during course of search. High Court relied upon decision in case of G. K. Senniappan (supra). Again, with respect, we have reservations on ratio recorded in said judgment on question of undisclosed income, which can be made subject matter of block assessment. fact that search and survey were conducted on same day showed that they were related. Undisclosed income can be computed also on basis of such other material or information as are available with Assessing Officer. This would and should include information and material when search and survey operations are undertaken at same time, though it may not include survey operations unconnected with search. There could possibly be other exceptions also. answer would be case and fact specific. Even otherwise, as noticed while examining judgment in case of G. K. Senniappan (supra), position in present appeals is different as individual assessee had not filed returns of income and hostile and culpable material and information was found during course of search. These two decisions were followed by Madras High Court in CIT v. P. K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad) though said judgment also makes reference to decision in Ravi Kant Jain (supra) which we have already examined above. assessee in his block assessment return had declared Rs. 36.10 lakhs as undisclosed income. However, in block assessment order, Rs. 2.56 crores were added, relying upon investigation that followed search as letter was found that led to discovery of fixed deposits in name of fictitious persons amounting to Rs. 2.83 crores. additions were deleted on ground that undisclosed income was not detected as result of search but by investigation which followed search. In said decision except for following earlier judgments in S. Ajit Kumar and G. K. Senniappan (supra) does not lay down any ratio or observation, which detracts or affects legal conclusion and findings recorded by us. In different paragraphs, we have dealt with appeal in case of JMM. As noticed above, Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee JMM, asserting that no incriminating material evidence/information was gathered/found during course of search in case of individual assessees. This aspect has been dealt with in great detail above. Moreover, in case of JMM notice under section 158BD read with section 158BC of Act was issued and there was also search of premises of M/s. Anjali Jain and Associates, chartered accountant and auditor of JMM where books of account and other documents were found and seized. Subsequently, during investigation, statements of different persons referred to above, were recorded to ascertain and decipher whether money deposited in bank accounts had any connection or belonged to JMM or said money was undisclosed income of individual assessees. assessment in hands of JMM was on protective basis. Tribunal has not considered and examined said evidence and has also not gone into question whether and if in case no addition could be made in hands of individual assessee, substantive addition on basis of said evidence or material could be sustained in hands of JMM. Of course, in case substantive addition in hands of individual assessee stands finally affirmed, protective addition in hands of JMM would dissipate and would not be sustainable. During course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for individual assessees/JMM had stressed that other points and grounds were raised before Tribunal but these have not been adjudicated upon and decided, as appeals were allowed on preliminary ground; there was no undisclosed income which could be made subject matter of block assessment and additions, if any, could be made only in regular/normal assessment. Learned counsel for Revenue accepts said position. We also notice that Tribunal has not gone into and examined merits. Thus, order of remand would be justified and is required as other issues on merits, etc., have to be examined. At this stage, we also record that it will be open to Revenue to argue and contend before Tribunal in case certain additions cannot be made in block assessment proceedings, liberty should be granted to make said addition by resort to section 147 of Act or question whether additions can be made in accordance with law in regular/normal assessment proceedings should be left open. If any such contention is raised by Revenue, same will be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. In view of aforesaid discussion, we answer substantial questions of law mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment in favour of Revenue and against respondent-assessee. We also pass order of remand for decision on other issues and merit. Observations made in this decision are for purpose of deciding present appeal, and additions and other issues on merits will be examined as per facts and material on record. To cut short any delay, parties are directed to appear before Incometax Appellate Tribunal on December 15, 2014, when date of hearing will be fixed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shailendra Mahto