Judgment :- P.R. Raman, J. All these appeals raise common questions of fact and law and hence disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of convenience, I.T.A. 283/2002 is taken as the leading case in which arguments are addressed. 3. This appeal arises under the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessment relates to a block period of ten years 1986-87 to 1996-97 and assessment was made in accordance with Section 158 BC read with Section 158 BD of the Act. The subject matter relates mainly to the legality and validity of the said block assessment of undisclosed income on the ground that there was no search on the assessee but search was on another person. 4. Appellants are the sons of one Kader Haji who being in assessee and resident of Mercara was within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Authorities in Koorg District in Karnataka State. The appellants, on the other hand, were residents of Mattannur, in Kannur District. A search was conducted in the business premises and the residence of Kader Haji on 22.11.1995 in which various incriminating documents, investment details and accounts books relating to the Appellant – Assessees were seized. In the course of examination Kader Haji explained that investments in the names of his sons, all undisclosed investments and other outgoings shall be considered separately in their assessments. Hence notices were issued to the sons under Section 158 BD of the Income-tax Act. In response thereto, the assessee appellant filed return for the block period in Form No. II B declaring the undisclosed income as ‘Nil’. 5. The appellants are partners in the firm M/s. Safa Wood Industries, Mattannur, M/s. Cresent Medicals and M/s. Kayyee Associates, Madikara. They are also partners in KVKM Enterprises, Bangalore. In the course of the assessment the assessee also furnished statement of wealth relevant to the period included in the block assessment. The assessee’s various investments and sources were also scrutinized. After examining the available evidence and discussions. The Income-tax Officer worked out the assessee’s receipts and payments and also the undisclosed income for the block period in question. In the course of the assessment the assessee also furnished statement of wealth relevant to the period included in the block assessment. The assessee’s various investments and sources were also scrutinized. After examining the available evidence and discussions. The Income-tax Officer worked out the assessee’s receipts and payments and also the undisclosed income for the block period in question. It was in the course of assessment proceedings against Kader Haji, the father of the appellants for the block assessment under Section 158 BC that a cash balance statement was filed which showed certain undisclosed investments and further outgoings which are to be considered separately in the assessments of the appellants herein. The files were therefore, transferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi, to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Calicut and pursuant to the notice issued by the said Officer, block assessments were finally completed. 6. The order of assessment passed is Annexure A produced in the case, Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The main contention was that the Officer has no jurisdiction to make the block assessment under Section 158 BC in Kader Haji’s i.e. in his father’s case. It was contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle, Calicut has no jurisdiction on the assessee as he is not the “assessing officer” as stipulated in Section 158 BD of the Act. It was contended that in the case the assessment has been made by the same assessing officer who has assessed and completed the assessment of late Kader Haji, the father of the appellants. It was contended that the appellant in I.T.A.283/2002 – Mohammed Salim was assessed at Kannur and an order was passed under Section 158 BC(c) read with Section 158BD which was without jurisdiction. The tribunal noticed that the assessee has been previously assessed to tax at Kannur. The tribunal found in paragraph 8 except making a claim that the assessee was previously assessed to tax a Kannur, no evidence whatsoever has been furnished to substantiate the same. It was contended that for the year 1996-97 the capital gain of Rs.3,53,969/- should not be included as undisclosed income, that being the income relating to the part of the year for which previous year has not ended. The tribunal, however, overruled these contentions and upheld the assessments granting some marginal relief. Annexure B is the order of the Tribunal. It was contended that for the year 1996-97 the capital gain of Rs.3,53,969/- should not be included as undisclosed income, that being the income relating to the part of the year for which previous year has not ended. The tribunal, however, overruled these contentions and upheld the assessments granting some marginal relief. Annexure B is the order of the Tribunal. The appellants aggrieved thereby, preferred these Income-tax Appeals invoking Section 260A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 7. According to the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration. (i) Was the Appellate Tribunal correct in law in not holding that the block assessment initiated under Section 158 BC read with Section 158 BD on the appellant is bad in the eye of law being violative of Section 127 of the Act? (ii) Was the Appellate Tribunal correct in law in not holding that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Calicut, cannot assess the appellant under block assessment based an another persons income? (iii) Was the Appellate Tribunal correct in law in rectifying the block assessment made on the basis of cash flow statement called for from the appellant? It not the block assessment based on cash flow statement one which is contrary to the provisions of Section 158(b) an Section 158 BB of the Act? (iv) Was the Appellate Tribunal correct in law in not holding that the computation of capital gains of the appellant is different from his father Kadar Haji is bad in law and that the capital gains for the year 1996-97 cannot be treated as undisclosed income for that year as the relevant previous yet was yet to end at the particular point of time and there was time to file regular return for that particular year? 8. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel Sri. Kochunni Nair on behalf of the assessee and Sri. P.K. Ravindranatha Menon Senior Standing Counsel for the Income-tax Department. 9. It was contended on behalf of the assessee reiterating two aspects – one regarding the validity of the block assessment and the other pertaining to capital gains, that the capital gains for the year 1996-97 cannot be treated as undisclosed income for that year as the relevant period was yet to end at the particular point of time and there was time for filing regular return for that particular period. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the Revenue that when a search is conducted in the premises of an assessee and the assessing officer was satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any other person other than the persons with respect to whom the search was made or whose books of accounts or other documents were requisitioned, then the officer can hand over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that the proceedings in the present case were thus initiated by the officer to whom the file was transferred, which is strictly in accordance with law. 10. Before considering the contentions raised, it will be useful to refer to the relevant section which is extracted hereunder: Procedure for block assessment. 158BC Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any person, then, --- (a) the Assessing Officer shall-- (i) in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a 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 the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a 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 the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the same manner as a return under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period: Provided that no notice under Section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return. (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158 BB and the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall so far as may be, apply; The assessing officer, on determination of the undisposed income of the block period in accordance with this chapter shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment. (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 132B. Undisclosed income of any other person. 158BD Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the 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, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed under section 158BC against such other person And the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly.” 11. On a combined reading of these two provisions it can be seen that as per Section 158 BD if a search conducted in the premises of any person discloses income belonging to any other person and the assessing officer is satisfied about the same, then files, books of account etc. can be handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that assessing officer may proceed against such other person as though the entire chapter or provisions will apply accordingly. Therefore, it is not necessary that the search should be conducted in the premises of the Appellant/Assessee and since the search conducted in the case of the father of the assessee namely Kader Haji, disclosed concealed income belonging to the appellant and other son of Khader Haji then the assessing officer is entitled to hand over the file to the assessing officer concerned who has jurisdiction over the appellant and other sons. 12. 12. In this case, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax by exercise of his power under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, transferred the file in the case of Kader Haji, the father of the appellants to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax at Calicut. The Commissioner of Income tax, Kochi, transferred the case of the assessees also to the same officer and as a result, the same assessing officer, by virtue of the transfer under Section 127 and S.158 BD made assessment of Kader Haji the father of the appellants as well as that of the appellants. 13. The case of Kader Haji came up for consideration before this Court in 268 ITR 465. The question considered was whether the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B would fall within the meaning of “case” in the explanation to Section 127 enabling the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to transfer the block assessment to a subordinate officer? It was noticed that Kader Haji who expired and is represented by his son in appeal was under the rolls of Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Mercara. It was further found that Kader Haji – the original assessee was a timber merchant having business interests in Mattannur in Kerala and in Mercara, in Karnataka State and that a search was conducted on 22.11.1995 in his residence and business premises and consequent on such search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, in order to facilitate effective and coordinate investigation, by proceedings dated February 28, 1996 of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, Karnataka, in exercise of his powers under Section 127(2), transferred all the cases of the said assessee to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (Inv.), Circle, Calicut, whereupon that authority issued notice under Section 158 BC to file a return setting forth the total income including undisclosed income for the block period. Kader Haji filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, contending that the show cause notice issued by that authority did not contain the entire reasons which prompted them to pass the impugned order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the appeals filed therefrom also ended with the same fate. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the appeals filed therefrom also ended with the same fate. Thereafter, assessments were completed and against the order passed by the assessing officer, appeals were preferred before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, wherein a contention was raised that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, wherein a contention was raised that the Assistant Commissioner of income-tax (Inv.) Circle. Calicut had no jurisdiction to make the block assessment and that such jurisdiction still remained with the Assessing Officer originally having jurisdiction over the assessee under Section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act. It was also submitted that only the Income-tax Officer, Mercara, who conducted the search had jurisdiction to make assessment for the block period in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B and even though the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, has passed an order under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act transferring the file to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle-I, Calicut, he can transfer only a case in relation to any proceedings under the Act in respect of any year and the Commissioner could have transferred only a case in relation to any “proceedings under the Act in respect of any year”. It was also submitted that the assessment for the block period in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B is different from a regular assessment and different from “proceedings” under the Act in respect of any year, as mentioned in the Explanation. This Court considered the meaning and scope of block assessment and the reasons for introduction of Chapter XIV-B dealing with the special procedure for assessment of search cases. It was contended on behalf of the assessee drawing a distinction between the case relating to block assessment, stressing on the word “any case” and the words “in respect of” and the expression “any year” and contend for the position that the expression “case” would take in only with regard to case relating to a particular period and not regarding any block period. After referring to the various case law on the subject and after referring to relevant provisions in the statute, this Court held that the expressions “any year” and “any case” exclude limitation or qualification which points in a distributive construction. After referring to the various case law on the subject and after referring to relevant provisions in the statute, this Court held that the expressions “any year” and “any case” exclude limitation or qualification which points in a distributive construction. Considering the object and purpose of Section 127 and to facilitate effective and co-ordinates investigation, the Explanation to Section 127 has to be liberally construed and therefore “block assessment” would fall within the expression “case” enabling the Commissioner to transfer those cases relating to block assessment to the subordinate officer. 14. The same argument is reiterated and the learned counsel for the assessee would contend that Section 158-B of the Income-tax Act contemplates the handing over of the documents to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person and hence according to him, the officer who conducted the search and the officer to whom the files are handed over in the case of the other person must be a different officer and even though the transfer in the case of Kader Haji is sustained by this Court, according to him, he is not raising any ground as against the transfer as such in the case of the appellant; but would contend that the order transferring the case by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle-1 at Calicut will only enable the officer to complete the assessment in any particular year; but not to make any block assessment. 15. We find no force in this contention. Section 158-BD only enables the officer who conducted the search in the case of a person to hand over the documents to the officer concerned in respect of the other person since the very same officer who conducted the search may not be the officer concerned to proceed with the assessment of such other person. Therefore, the intention of the legislature is clear that when an officer conducts search in the case of a person he is able to unearth certain documents, incriminating materials against any other person the search can made use of to proceed against such other person by the concerned officer who has jurisdiction over such other persons and all the provisions under the Chapter will apply. Hence if the same officer happens to be the assessing officer in the case of such other person also, there is no necessity to hand over the file. In this case, by virtue of the transfer of the case file, the Assistant Commissioner, Calicut is competent to proceed to make the block assessment, under Section 158-BC read with Section 158 BD of the Income-tax Act. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that the officer to whom the file was transferred could only make a regular assessment and not a block assessment, is without any force and is concluded by the decision of this Court in the decision report in 268 ITR 465 as referred to above. We are in complete agreement with the said judgment. 16. Even though it was contended that the assessment has not been made based on net wealth statement no such question was raised at any point of time before the tribunal or before the officer concerned. The only argument raised was that a block assessment cannot be made by the same officer to whom the case was transferred under Section 127. Only if a question is raised and left undecided by the tribunal, could rise a situation to consider whether the matter required to be remanded. We do not find any such situation arising for consideration in the case on hand. 17. As regards the capital gains of an amount of Rs.1,31,000/- the tribunal found that the assessee, along with his brothers and father sold 1.75 acres of land for a consideration of Rs.57,75,000/-. The land belonged to them jointly and each of the sharer had got 1/8th share. The assessing officer rejected the claim regarding the income for the year 1996-97 for which previous year had not ended on the date of the search, holding that a notice under Section 158BD was served on the assessee only by January, 1998 and up to that time the assessee has not filed any return offering this year’s income for taxation and this view of the assessing officer was upheld by the tribunal. This fact found by the assessing officer as confirmed by the appellate tribunal that the assessee did not file any return offering this item for taxation and notice under Section 158 BD was served only by the end of January 1996 are not disputed and are pure questions of fact. When the assessee has thus failed to file any return there is no merit in his contention that the said amount shall not be treated as the undisclosed income for the year 1996-97. No other contentions were raised. Hence we find no merits in these appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed.