HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.711 OF 2014 DATED:17.12.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-I Hyderabad Appellant And Harmahendar Singh Bagga Respondent HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.711 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against portion of judgment and order of learned Tribunal dt.3.8.2012, which was passed in number of appeals before Tribunal in relation to assessment years starting from 1996-1997 to 2007-2008 on following suggested questions of law: 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in upholding order of CIT(A) holding that income of Sree Rama Enterprises has to be considered in hands of Sree Balaji Enterprises and as assessee has already included this income in Sree Balaji Enterprises same cannot be considered as undisclosed income in hands of assessee? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that income of Sree Rama Enterprises is to be assessed in hands of Sree Balaji Enterprises ignoring evidence gathered during course of search in premises of assessee is perverse? We have seen portion of judgment, which has dealt with issues raised in appeal. learned Tribunal has found no new material in relation to above issues during search and seizure. materials sought to be relied on, were gathered from post search and seizure exercise and same were already disclosed by filing returns and assessment was made. Therefore, it is settled position of law that unless new materials are found in course of search and seizure, action cannot be taken in order to undo settled position. learned Tribunal has followed judgment of Delhi High Court in [1] C.I.T. v. Ravi Kant Jain , on issue appropriately. We therefore do not find any element of law to decide in this appeal. appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 17.12.2014 bnr [1] (2001) 250 ITR 141 Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Hyderabad v. Harmahendar Singh Bagga