JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. This appeal by the Revenue arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17 December 2013. The appeal arises in relation to the block period ending on 26 April 2002. The Revenue has raised several questions of law of which the following have been pressed at the hearing of the appeal: - "(I) Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per provisions of law, it was for the assessee to rebut the evidence found during the course of search and not for the AO to prove that the contents of documents were true and belonged to the assessee. (II) Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the additions of Rs.94,51,900/-, which were made on the basis of seized documents, describing these as dumb documents. (III) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and facts in directing itself to adopt the figures of ITSC order in the case of assessee when the assessee had not made any petition and accordingly no settlement order was passed in the case of the assessee." (These questions of law correspond to questions (I), (II) and (IV) of the grounds of appeal). 2. The admitted position is that a search was conducted in respect of a partnership firm and at the residential premises of its partners. Before the assessment order under section 158BC was made, the firm and its partners filed applications before the Settlement Commission on 19 April 2004, 8 April 2004 and 29 December 2003 respectively. This was before the initiation of the proceedings under section 158BD; the notice under that provision having been issued on 29 July 2004. The Tribunal in the course of its impugned judgment has noted that the material and documents which were seized during the course of search formed the basis of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission and were duly considered by the Settlement Commission while determining the total undisclosed income. In the remand report, which was called for by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer was not able to establish that relevant material had not been considered by the Settlement Commission. In the remand report, which was called for by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer was not able to establish that relevant material had not been considered by the Settlement Commission. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has held that once the Settlement Commission has considered the seized material and had determined the undisclosed income while arriving at the figure of total income of the firm and its partners, the same documents could not be again considered by the Assessing Officer for making an addition in the hands of the assessee, namely the partners. This approach of the Tribunal is consistent with law. Once the Settlement Commission had applied its mind and had made a determination, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to make additions at variance to the determination of the Settlement Commission on the basis of the same material. 3. For these reasons, no substantial questions of law would arise in the appeal. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.