JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.—These two appeals are filed by the Revenue questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal in MP No. 84/Bang/2001 in IT(SS)A No. 51/Bang/1997 for the block asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1994-95 and 1996-97 framing the substantial questions of law in these appeals and urging various grounds in support of question No. 1, praying to set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called as the Tribunal' in short) and remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the correctness of the finding of the appellate authority on merits of the case in Appeal No. 69/2002 and in the connected appeal the order passed by the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 165/Bang/1997 regarding block period assessment order dt. 13th July, 2007 and praying to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeals and remanding the matter to examine the concurrent finding of fact on merits in these matters and restore the order passed by the assessing authority. 2. The substantial questions of law framed in IT Appeal No. 69/2002 are extracted hereunder: 11. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the last drawn Panchnama dt. 12th Feb., 1996 should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing limitation as per Expln. 2 to Section 158BE of the Act, but intermediary date i.e., 19th Jan., 1996 should be the date taken for the purpose of computation of limitation and consequently treat the block assessment order as barred by limitation? 12. Whether the Tribunal was correct in examining the duration taken for the search from 12th Dec, 1995 to 12th Feb., 1996 raised for the first time by the assessee before the Tribunal when the jurisdiction and the conclusion of the search were never questioned by the assessee in other proceedings and the same had reached finality? 13. Whether the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the material evidence and taken into consideration only irrelevant material to record a perverse finding that the search had concluded on 19th Jan., 1996? 14. 13. Whether the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the material evidence and taken into consideration only irrelevant material to record a perverse finding that the search had concluded on 19th Jan., 1996? 14. Whether the Tribunal was correct in arriving at a conclusion that the nature of business of the assessee of selling land would result in profit to the assessee only on completion of the transaction and not when the actual profit arises during the relevant assessment year as and when the assessee receives income as held by the apex Court in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 1053 ? The answer to the above substantial questions will apply to the questions of law framed in the connected appeal and therefore the same are not "extracted in this judgment. In support of the first substantial question of law, the learned Counsel for the Revenue, Mr. M.V. Seshachala placed strong reliance on the provisions of Section 158BE of the Act and also the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Asstt. CIT (Inv.) (2003) 81 TTJ (Bang) (SB) 1044 : (2004) 268 ITR 49 (Bang) (SB) (AT) wherein, on a reference being made, the Tribunal has held that it has no power to examine the correctness of the finding recorded by the assessing authority in relation to the last drawn Panchnama for the purpose of computation of limitation to pass an order under Section 132(3) of the Act for the block period assessment orders against the assessee. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance upon Section 132(3) of the Act, and also Rules 112 and 112A of amended Rules of 1997 contending that the execution of the last authorisation issued by the officer empowered for conducting search, seizure of money, bullion, jewellery anything in relation to undisclosed income and bringing the same for block assessment period following the procedure contemplated under Chapter XTV-B of the Act, as for removal of doubts, the last of the authorisations passed under Section 132 of the Act in the case of search on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last drawn Panchnama in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued as stated in Expln. 2 to Sub-section (2) of Section 158BE of the Act. 2 to Sub-section (2) of Section 158BE of the Act. In the instant case, two authorisations were issued by the officer empowered for the purpose of conducting search both in the official premises and residential premises of the assessee by issuing the authorisation on the same day viz., 12th Dec, 1995. The search was conducted on the basis of authorisation issued by authorised officer at 12th Dec, 1995 at 3.30 p.m. and closed temporarily at 1.15 p.m. on 13th Dec, 1995. Search started at 3.30 p.m. and closed on 13th Dec, 1995 at 1.15 p.m. Several records were seized and thereafter, prohibitory order under Section 132(3) of the Act was passed as the authorised officer was under the bona fide belief that further search and seizure are required to be made with regard to undisclosed income of the assessee and thereafter on 19th Jan., 1996 at 3.00 p.m. search was conducted, Panchnama was drawn at 6.30 p.m., no seizure was made. On 7th Feb., 1996 at 9.30 a.m. search commenced and closed at 11.20 a.m. no seizure was made. On 12th Feb., 1996 at 3 p.m. search started and closed at 3.45 p.m. on the same day. Again, search commenced on 13th Dec, 1995 at 12.30 p.m. and closed at 4 p.m. on the same day. No seizure was made as the Panchnama was drawn. In the Panchnama it is recorded that the last Panchnama was drawn and search was concluded. On the same day in respect of the second authorisation issued to conduct search in the residence of the assessee, search was made on 12th Dec, 1995 and closed on the same day at 6 p.m. Panchnama was drawn, cash and other valuables were seized and again on 13th Dec, 1995 at 12.30 p.m. search was made in the residential premises of the assessee at 12.30 p.m. and closed and Panchnama was drawn at 4 p.m. on the same day, no seizure of jewellery was inventorised. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent assessee Sri A. Shankar placed strong reliance on second authorisation and search conducted on 13th Dec, 1995 and on 12th Dec, 1995 at 3.45 p.m., but the last of the authorisation executed for conducting search and drawing the Mahazar and cash seized must be taken as the last Panchnama for the purpose of computation of limitation as stipulated under Section 158BE(2) r/w Expln. 2 to Clause (a) of the provisions of the Act to pass block period assessment order. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revenue further submits placing strong reliance on the circulars relating to the provision in Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 that certain clarificatory amendments in procedure for block assessment are provided. He has also placed strong reliance on the last unnumbered para contained at p. 256 of the paper book which portion will be extracted at the reasoning portion of the judgment while answering substantial question of law No. 4 framed in both the appeals. 5. The learned Counsel for the Revenue further placed reliance on the decision of the (sic) Board Circular No. 772, dt. 23rd Dec., 1998 (1999) 151 CTR (St) 9 : (1999) 235 ITR 74 and the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of M.B. Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 124 (2005) DLT 324 and Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair and Anr., (2005) 199 CTR (Ker) 279. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Shankar, has sought to justify the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in its judgment on merits of the case in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power on appreciation of evidence and material facts on record and answered the question of law on limitation regarding the block assessment order passed by the assessing authority holding that it is barred by limitation. The said finding of fact is neither erroneous nor error in law. In support of the contention urged by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Revenue that the Tribunal has no power to go into the factual correctness and legality of the Panchnama drawn by the empowered officer executing the last authorisation for conducting search, he placed strong reliance on Ramaiah Reddy's case (supra). In support of the contention urged by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Revenue that the Tribunal has no power to go into the factual correctness and legality of the Panchnama drawn by the empowered officer executing the last authorisation for conducting search, he placed strong reliance on Ramaiah Reddy's case (supra). The said legal contention is strongly rebutted by the learned Counsel for the assessee, placing strong reliance upon the provisions of Section 132(13), wherein it is stated that the provisions of the Cr.PC, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall apply, so far as may be, to search and seizure of money, bullion, jewellery, under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (1A), which provisions provide the procedure required to be followed by either investigation officer or authorised officer for conducting search and seizure of money, bullion, jewellery. 7. Further, the learned Counsel submits that in miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue challenging the finding of fact recorded on the question of limitation framed in the appeal by the assessee was sought to be interfered with, as the same is vitiated on account of error apparent on the face of the record. The said miscellaneous petition was dismissed by the Tribunal after applying its mind to the facts by recording the findings on the question of limitation in the appeal filed by the Revenue holding that there is no ground made out to interfere with its earlier order of 1999 as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. That order is also challenged. The fact is to be noted that the relative statutory provisions of IT Act and the decision, particularly Ramaiah Reddy's case (supra) is relied upon in support of the grounds urged in the miscellaneous petition. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the miscellaneous petition is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and, no doubt substantial question of law in this regard is not framed in the appeal as substantial question of law would arise in the order passed on merits is also challenged. No doubt, the judgment of the Tribunal is also challenged, for which an application for condonation is filed by the Revenue and the appeal was heard on merits. 8. Learned Counsel, Mr. No doubt, the judgment of the Tribunal is also challenged, for which an application for condonation is filed by the Revenue and the appeal was heard on merits. 8. Learned Counsel, Mr. Shankar, in support of his submissions placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Chitra Devi Soni, (2009) 313 ITR 174 Raj wherein the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court with reference to interpretation of Section 132(1)(a)-(c) and Section 158B of the IT Act has held that it is not open for the Tribunal/Court to go into the question of sufficiency of the reasons, the question as to whether there existed any material at all which constituted reason to believe, is a matter which can definitely be looked into either by the Tribunal or by the Court, as the absence would vitiate the entire action. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the assessee to substantiate his submission that the finding of fact recorded on the question of limitation by the Tribunal was after examining the legality of the issue for which the Tribunal had jurisdiction and power. 9. With reference to the above said rival legal contentions urged by the learned Counsel for parties we answer the substantial question of law No. 4 framed in this appeal against the Revenue for the following reasons: 10. It is an undisputed fact that the authorisation was issued by1 the empowered officer in favour of the officer to conduct search on both the office and residential premises of the assessee on 12th Dec, 1995. It is an undisputed fact that the authorisation was issued by1 the empowered officer in favour of the officer to conduct search on both the office and residential premises of the assessee on 12th Dec, 1995. The last authorisation is the second authorisation executed by the officer for conducting search in the residential premises of the assessee on 12th Dec., 1995 at 3.45 p.m. Though the first authorisation was issued on the same day for conducting search in the office premises of the assessee, the search started at 3.30 p.m. Therefore, we have to treat the second authorisation executed at 3.45 p.m. on 12th Dec, 1995 and Panchnama drawn by the search conducting officer after seizure of cash from the house of the assessee is the last authorisation and the same has to be treated as last Panchnama for the purpose of computation of limitation for the reason that on 13th Dec, 1995 in the residence of the assessee search started at 12.30 p.m. and concluded at 4 p.m., on the same day. On that day, no seizure of either jewellery, cash or bullion was made, only jewellery was inventorised. The above said Panchnama cannot be taken as a valid Panchnama for the purpose of computation of limitation of passing the assessment order as the same is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 110 [sic) of the IT Act r/w Rules 104, 105 (sic) and 112(4) of the IT Rules. 11. It is necessary for us to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties and it would be necessary for us to extract the provisions of Section 158BA, which reads thus: 158BA. Assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where after the 30th day of June, 1995 a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A in the case of any person, then, the AO shall proceed to assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (2) The total undisclosed income relating to the block period shall be charged to tax, at the rate specified in Section 113, as the income of the block period irrespective of the previous year or years to which such income relates and irrespective of the fact whether regular assessment for any one or more of the relevant assessment years is pending or not. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that- (a) the assessment made under this chapter shall be in addition to the regular assessment in respect of each previous year included in the block period; (b) the total undisclosed income relating to the block period shall not include the income assessed in any regular assessment as income of such block period; (c) the income assessed in this chapter shall not be included in the regular assessment of any previous year included in the block period. (3) Where the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the AO that any part of income referred to in Sub-section (1) relates to an assessment year for which the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 for any previous year has not expired, and such income or the transactions relating to such income are recorded on or before the date of the search or requisition in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous years, the said income shall not be included in the block period. The provisions of Section 132(13) of the IT Act regarding search and seizure which states that the provisions of Cr.PC, 1973 (2 of 1974) are applicable. The provisions of Section 132(13) of the IT Act regarding search and seizure which states that the provisions of Cr.PC, 1973 (2 of 1974) are applicable. The IT Rules 104 and 105 (sic), 112(4) framed by the Union of India in exercise of its Rule making power under Section 295 of the IT Act, it is worthwhile for this Court to extract Rule 112(4) of the Rules which reads thus : (4) If ingress into such building or place cannot be obtained it shall be lawful for the authorised officer executing the authority, with such assistance of police officers or of officers of the Central Government, or of both as may be required, to enter such building or place and search therein and in order to effect an entrance into such building or place, to break open any outer or inner door or window of any building or place, whether that of the person to be searched or of any other person, if after notification of his authority and purpose and demand of admittance duly made, he cannot otherwise obtain admittance: Provided that, if any such building or place is an apartment in actual occupancy of a woman, who according to custom does not appear in public, the authorised officer shall, before entering such apartment, give notice to such woman that she is at liberty to withdraw and shall afford her every reasonable facility for withdrawing and may break open the apartment and enter it. After conducting the search in the residence of the assessee Panchnama was drawn at closure of the search at 1.15 a.m. on 13th Dec, 1995, several records were seized, Panchnama was drawn in this regard and thereafter prohibitory order was passed under Section 132(4) of the Act by the search conducting officer and further search was conducted by him on 19th Jan., 1996, 7th Feb., 1996 and 12th Feb., 1996 and Panchnamas were drawn stating that no seizure of either cash, jewellery or valuable property was found and seized as could be seen from the Panchnamas with two witnesses as required in law. 12. We have perused the record of the AO which was made available to us to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 12. We have perused the record of the AO which was made available to us to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. We have noticed that the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the Panchnama was drawn on both the dates of hearing referred to supra wherein it is stated that there was no seizure of money, jewellery, bullion or anything and the same is not attested by two witnesses as required in law, therefore, the said Panchnama cannot be termed as the last Panchnama as provided in the statutory provisions of the Act to contend that the Panchnama by the search conducting officer was drawn on 12th Feb., 1996, after the search was closed at 3.45 p.m. Pursuant to the prohibitory order it is the last Panchnama as referred to under Section 115(b)(3)(a) Expln. (ii) [sic] of the Act for the purpose of computation of limitation to pass assessment order. 13. After careful reading of the provisions of Section 115(b) (sic) and Expln. (ii) to Clause (a) and Rule 112(4) of the IT Rules, it is clear that the Panchnama drawn on the execution of the last authorisation in the premises of the assessee on 12th Feb., 1996 is not the last Panchnama for the purpose of limitation to justify the assessment order passed by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly framed the question of law regarding limitation in passing the block assessment order for its consideration against the assessee. The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, the fact of execution of last authorisation and Panchnama by the officer on 13th Dec, 1995 commencing at 12.30 p.m. and concluded at 4 p.m. is as could be seen in accordance with Rule 112(6) of the IT Rules. The Tribunal has examined the statutory provisions of Expln. (ii) to Section 158BE of the Act and has rightly held that Panchnama drawn on 12th Feb., 1996 by the search conducting officer is not the last one as no cash,, jewellery or bullion was seized from the place of search conducted and attested by two witnesses for the purpose of initiation of the proceedings against the assessee under Chapter XV of the IT Act on the ground that undisclosed income was found at the time of search in the office premises of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal is legally justified in examining the correctness of the last Panchnama dt. 12th Feb., 1996 as claimed by the Revenue for the purpose of computation of one year period of limitation as stipulated under Section 158BE(1) of the Act to pass block period assessment order against the assessee. According to Section 158BE r/w Expln. (ii) to Clause (a) Panchnama is an important document for the assessing authority to examine the undisclosed income may be money, bullion, jewellery, anything seized in the presence of two inhabitant witnesses must be proved by examining them before the AO, when the correctness of the same is disputed. Therefore, the Panchnama referred to in the above statutory provision of Section 158BE of the Act will be an important documentary evidence for the purpose of computation of limitation to pass block period assessment order against the assessee within the stipulated period of limitation as prescribed either under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 158BE of the Act as the case may be. 14. In the instant case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of material before it in exercise of ' its power rightly after following the observations made by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Chitra Devi Soni (supra) on which strong reliance has rightly been placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the assessee in support of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question of limitation in passing the block period assessment order. Apart from the said reasoning the last authorisation executed under Section 158BA r/w Expln. (ii) is examined by us very carefully to find out the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the contentious point in the impugned judgment. It is not in dispute that the second authorisation dt. 12th Dec, 1995 issued by the empowering officer in favour of search conducting officer is the last authorisation for conducting searching in the residence of the assessee at 3.45 p.m. on the same date, which is the last authorisation executed by the search conducting officer, the same was closed at 6 p.m. and Panchnama was drawn to evidence the fact that cash was seized from the residence of the assessee. Therefore, for the purposes of limitation under Section 158BE(1)(a), the block period assessment order passed by the AO is beyond the period of limitation. On this ground also the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on undisputed facts, therefore, we have to accept the finding of fact recorded by it in the impugned judgment on the question of limitation holding that the last Panchnama dt. 12th Feb., 1996 on the first authorisation executed by search conducting officer that nothing was found and seized is an undisputed fact and the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on strong foundation of the provisions of the Act, as last Panchnama stated by the Revenue is not the Panchnama in the eyes of law for the reason that the prohibitory order was passed on 12th Dec, 1995 by the officer after conducting search and nothing was found in the premises of the office of the assessee and drawing the Panchnama to this effect cannot be in the legal term called as last Panchnama. Panchnama dt. 12th Feb., 1996 could not have been drawn by the search conducting officer for the purpose of computation of limitation under Section 158BE(1)(a) to pass assessment order. Taking the abovesaid Panchnama date as last one to justify the assessment order with regard to limitation, the same is not passed within one year as provided under Section 158BE(a) of the IT Act. Hence the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the contentious point of limitation are legal arid valid as the same are based on facts and the provisions of the Act. 15. Therefore, we answer the substantial question of law No. 4 against the Revenue and confirm the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment on the question of limitation. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the miscellaneous petition of the Revenue holding that the order passed on merits on the question of limitation is not vitiated in law. In our considered view there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the order passed in the miscellaneous petition by the Tribunal which is impugned herein in IT Appeal No. 69/2002 cannot be gone into by this Court as no substantial question of law would arise much less the question framed in the appeal. 16. In our considered view there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the order passed in the miscellaneous petition by the Tribunal which is impugned herein in IT Appeal No. 69/2002 cannot be gone into by this Court as no substantial question of law would arise much less the question framed in the appeal. 16. For the reasons stated supra, we dismiss the connected appeal for the very same reasons, as we have answered substantial question of law framed regarding the question of limitation in passing the order of block period of assessment. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.