Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 16th August, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'E' (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No. 13/Del/2001.
2. The only ground agitated by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is with regard to deleting an addition of Rs. 10,20,000/- by the Assessing Officer.
3. The assessed had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 in which it had disclosed gifts of a total of Rs.10 lakhs made by two persons and another gift of Rs. 20,000/- made by a third person. The assessed furnished necessary documents in support of the gifts received by him.
4. It appears that a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of Act some time in February, 1997 in the premises of the assessed's father. No incriminating material in so far as the assessed is concerned was discovered during the search. However, the Assessing Officer resorted to Section 158BC of the Act and treated these gifts as concealed income and an attempt at money laundering.
6. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short CIT (A)] took the view that to consider the amounts for the purposes of a block assessment, it is important that some material document or information should have been discovered during the search operation which would indicate that the gifts were bogus or represented the concealed income of the assessed. Since no such material documents or information was found, a post search inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer during the block assessment proceedings could not form the basis for making an addition. Since the post search inquiry was unconnected with the information or material recovered during the search, it was held that at best the Assessing Officer could reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Act, but could not add the income under Section 158BC thereof.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which up held the view taken by the CIT (A)
8. The Tribunal held that there was nothing in the assessment order to show that any evidence was found during the search to suggest that the gifts were bogus. The gifts were declared in the return of income and fell outside the provisions of Chapter XIVB of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.
9. We are of the view that there is no error in the orders passed by the CIT (A) as well as by the Tribunal. In fact, it has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Elegant Homes Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 259 I.T.R. 232 that in Chapter XIV B of the Act, special provisions for assessment in search cases have been given and if any amount of income has not been taxed and during the course of search, if some undisclosed income is found on the basis of the material seized, that should be treated as undisclosed income as per the scheme of special assessment under Chapter XIV B.
10. The admitted position in the present case is that no incriminating material was found in the course of search and, thereforee, the Assessing Officer could not take resort to the provisions of Chapter XIV B of the Act to tax what was said to be the undisclosed or concealed income of the assessed.
11. We are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in this case.
12. Dismissed.