JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Both these appeals involve identical questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These Tax Appeals have been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging the common order dated 03.10.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in IT(SS)A No. 16/Ahd./2005 and IT(SS)A No. 337/Ahd./2004 whereby the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and that of the Revenue was dismissed. 3. Both these Tax Appeals were admitted in terms of the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that addition of Rs. 14,64,79,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the course of search/survey, is not sustainable?" 4. The facts in brief are that on 17.07.2002 a search u/s. 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee. At the end of search, the raiding party seized several documents, cash and other valuables. The assessee is a Builder and running a construction firm in the name of "Parmar Group". The assessee is also a Partner in five other business concerns. The search was carried out at the office premises of all the above concerns and also at the residence of certain parties who had entered into land transactions with the aforesaid firms. On the basis of the documents seized, the Assessing Officer passed an order making addition of Rs. 14,64,79,500/- towards undisclosed income. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A)-II. The CIT(A)-II partly allowed the appeal whereby, it sustained the addition of Rs. 6,56,37,650/- pertaining to lands covered under different Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and ordered deletion of Rs. 8,08,41,850/- pertaining to the remainder of lands. 6. The Department challenged the order of CIT(A)-II directing deletion of the addition of Rs. 8,08,41,850/- and assessee challenged the order of sustenance of addition of Rs. 6,56,37,650/- before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by the Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 03.10.2005. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue has preferred both these appeals. 7. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Mehta appearing for the Revenue and learned counsel Mr. Manish J. Shah appearing for the assessee. 8. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by the Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 03.10.2005. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue has preferred both these appeals. 7. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Mehta appearing for the Revenue and learned counsel Mr. Manish J. Shah appearing for the assessee. 8. It is not in dispute that the case of the assessee relates to an assessment for block period under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer is quite different in comparison to his jurisdiction while making assessment u/s. 143(3), 144 or even 147 of the Act. The basis difference between the two assessments is that while computing undisclosed income of the block period, the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the evidence, books of accounts or any other documents found and seized at the time of search or information available with him which are related to such documents/books of accounts. 9. The raiding party found the following documents at the time of search: (a) Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (b) Wills (c) Affidavits (d) Receipt of Payment (e) Possession Receipt (f) Agreements for Sale (g) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) 9.1 The case of assessee was that the documents listed at Sr. No. (a) to (d) and (f) were with respect to lands covered by agreements for sale dated 26.02.1996 whereas, the document at Sr. No. (e) was with respect to lands covered by both Agreement for Sale and MoU. The aforesaid stand of the assessee is not in dispute. The document listed at Sr. No. (g) were with respect to lands other than the lands covered under the Agreements for Sale listed under Sr. No. (f). 9.2 From the contents of the aforesaid documents, it is clear that insofar as lands covered by Agreements for Sale were concerned, the main documents were the Agreements for Sale itself, receipts of payments received by sellers and the Affidavits. No. (f). 9.2 From the contents of the aforesaid documents, it is clear that insofar as lands covered by Agreements for Sale were concerned, the main documents were the Agreements for Sale itself, receipts of payments received by sellers and the Affidavits. The other documents, such as Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Wills, Possession Receipts were consequential and since the Affidavits of the sellers confirmed the area of land and receipt of sale price, as mentioned in the Agreements for Sale, these two documents were substitute of each other and the contents of the same could not be ignored unless there is any positive evidence to show that either the rate mentioned in the Agreements for Sale was incorrect or that the Affidavits were not counterfeit. 9.3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Revenue, having not examined any of the sellers or any other party with respect to the truthfulness of the contents of the Agreements for Sale as well as the consequential Affidavits, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to compute the purchase price of lands mentioned in the Agreements for Sale, on the basis of rates mentioned in the Memorandum of Understandings. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the lower appellate authority, viz. CIT(A), was justified in deleting the undisclosed income estimated by the Assessing Officer while presuming the rates of lands covered by the Agreements for Sale on the basis of rates of land mentioned in the MoU of respective sellers. 10. Now, coming to the valuation of lands covered by MoUs estimated by the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that the Affidavits with respects to lands covered by these three MoUs having been found during the search itself wherein the sellers had confirmed that they had not received any sale price of lands covered by these MoUs or had not received any price, atleast at the rate mentioned in the MoUs, it was absolutely illegal for the Assessing Officer to presume the factum of payment for those lands and that too at the rate mentioned in the MoUs. The findings of the Assessing Officer to that effect are illegal and bad in law since no evidence was brought on record to show that the assessee had, in fact, or in actual, made payment on the basis of said rates. 11. The findings of the Assessing Officer to that effect are illegal and bad in law since no evidence was brought on record to show that the assessee had, in fact, or in actual, made payment on the basis of said rates. 11. On the record, there is nothing to establish the factum of actual payment of purchase price at the rates as mentioned in MoUs by the assessee to the sellers for lands covered by the Agreements for Sale or the MoUs. On the contrary, the Affidavits of all the six sellers found and seized during the search, itself confirm that none of them had received any amount in excess of the amounts mentioned in the Affidavits, which were with respect to lands covered by Agreements for Sale dated 26.02.1996 and had not received any single penny towards the sale price of lands covered by MoUs and that sale-deeds for lands covered by MoUs had not been executed. In the presence of the aforesaid documents evidence, the assumption or presumption arrived at by the Assessing Officer is uncalled for and bad in law. 12. Insofar as lands covered by MoUs are concerned, we are of the opinion that this fact alone, in absence of any evidence of assessee having made the payments and in presence of denial by the sellers, cannot be an evidence, as envisaged in Section 158BB(1) of the Act and consequently, cannot be considered as evidence for computation of any undisclosed income. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the computation of undisclosed income as made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed investment by the assessee for lands purported to be purchased and covered by MoUs. Therefore, the Tribunal was completely justified in deleting the addition and in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. 14. Thus, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, both the appeals stand dismissed.