JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'D' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 20.10.2006 in IT[SS]A No. 75/Ahd/2001 for the block Assessment Year 1989-90 to 1998-99 and upto the date of search, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal. 2. This Court on 28.02.2008 admitted the matter for consideration of two substantial questions of law. However, later on vide Misc. Civil Application (OJ) No. 138 of 2010, the revenue sought admission of the appeal qua three additional questions of law. The said application was allowed on 18.03.2015 and this court admitted the appeal for consideration of three more substantial questions of law. Therefore, in all this appeal is required to be heard for consideration of the following five questions of law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed any error in interpreting the provisions of Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the material collected, after the search and seizure operation was over, cannot be relied upon during the block assessment under Chapter XIV of the Income Tax Act to determine assessable income of the assessee? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 53,39,098/- under different heads? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in remanding the issue of unexplained investment in gold biscuits, which have been converted into ornaments to the Assessing Officer? (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is perverse and suffering from non application of mind or not?" 3. (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is perverse and suffering from non application of mind or not?" 3. A search and seizure operation was carried out u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the premises of the respondent on 13.10.1998 during which cash and jewellery were found which were seized by the authorities. Thereafter, a notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued on 27.01.1999 calling upon the assessee to file return of income for the block period. The assessee filed its return of income disclosing income at Rs. 11,15,100/-. The Assessing Officer determined the total undisclosed income at Rs. 65,46,024/- and accordingly made addition of Rs. 54,40,924/-. On appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee, the CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the same and deleted addition to the extent of Rs. 53,39,098/- made by the Assessing Officer. 3.1 On appeal before the Tribunal by the revenue, by impugned judgment and order, Tribunal confirmed the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. The assessee also filed Cross Objections in the said appeal being C.O. No. 101/A/2003 and the same was partly allowed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 4. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) both have committed serious error in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer which was based on cogent and relevant evidence. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the statement made by the assessee on 13.10.1998 and the further statement made on 15.12.1998. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the table giving out details of the items assessed retracted in the return pursuant to the disclosure. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the statement made by the assessee on 13.10.1998 and the further statement made on 15.12.1998. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the table giving out details of the items assessed retracted in the return pursuant to the disclosure. He has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Video Master vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2015] 378 ITR 374 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no evidence. He has further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sudharshan P. Amin vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2013] 217 Taxman 37 (Gujarat) wherein this Court has held that retraction made by the assessee after the confessional statement could not be accepted and addition should be made to his income as undeclared investment. 5. Mr. Ketan Shah, learned advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the search commenced on 13.10.1998 and concluded on 14.10.1998 and that the blank invoices found are from third person on 11.12.1998 i.e. after search concluded in the case of the assessee and therefore this is not subjected to investigation in block assessment in absence of any corroborative evidence found during search in assessee's premises. He submitted that the so called modus operandi mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the order is a presumption of his own without any supporting evidence. He submitted that no addition can be made merely on the basis of post search inquiry in absence of any corroborative evidence found. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shah has relied upon the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Standard Tea Processing Co. Ltd. reported in [2013] 34 taxmann.com 31 (Gujarat); (ii) Kailashben Manharlal Choksi vs. CIT reported in 328 ITR 411; (iii) Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT reported in [2006] 282 ITR 553 wherein this Court has discussed the presumption under section 132(4A). (iv) CIT vs. G.K. Senniappan reported in 284 ITR 220 wherein it is held that such other material of information as are available with A.O. should be relatable to such evidence and thus any other material cannot form basis of computation of undisclosed income in a block period. (iv) CIT vs. G.K. Senniappan reported in 284 ITR 220 wherein it is held that such other material of information as are available with A.O. should be relatable to such evidence and thus any other material cannot form basis of computation of undisclosed income in a block period. (v) CIT vs. Anandkumar reported in 294 ITR 497 (Del) wherein the Delhi High Court has held that when no seized material is found for the relevant period, unaccounted sales cannot be estimated for the whole period on the basis of post search period. (vi) CIT vs. Balaji Wire reported in 304 ITR 393 (Del) wherein the Delhi High Court has held that subsequent to search the statement of one V.P. was recorded and that this cannot be used against assessee for block period as they could not be said to be directly connected with recovery of any incriminating document and that apart the said statement of V.P. was recorded behind back and therefore no addition can be made. (vii) CIT vs. Late Rajpal reported in 333 ITR 315 (Del) wherein block assessment has been initiated against the assessee on the basis of statement of Mrs. C and therefore the statement is neither books of accounts nor assets and the statement is not a document which was found during the search and thus it cannot be said that the statement was seized during the search. (viii) CIT vs. Nirankar Nath reported in 255 CTR 488 (Allahabad) wherein the Allahabad High Court has held that income to be included in the block assessment is only such income which is directly evidenced by material found during the search and does not include income which has been discovered on the basis of post search inquiry. (ix) CIT vs. Dr. Ratan Kumar Singh reported in [2014] 265 CTR 103 (Allahabad) wherein this court has held that "undisclosed income" of the block period has to be determined on the basis of evidence found as the result of search or requisition of books of accounts or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with the A.O. and relatable to such evidence with certain other conditions. (x) CIT Vs. (x) CIT Vs. R.M. Patel - HUF reported in 298 ITR 274 wherein the Madras High Court held that what is contemplated under Section 158BB is that the undisclosed income shall be computed only in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the basis of evidence found as a result of search and such other material or information which are relating to such material. If the material seized does not, in any way, connect the assessee indicating that the assessee had any undisclosed income, it may not be proper to proceed against the assessee under Section 158BD r/w ss. 158BCand 143(3) without any basis whatsoever, especially in the absence of any material indicating any suppression of sales or suppression of income by the assessee. If that be so the undisclosed income cannot be assessed in the absence of any material collected during the search relating the assessee and that the Revenue cannot proceed on the basis of such material which is not related to the assessee invoking S. 158BD r/w ss. 158BC and 143(3) for assessing the undisclosed income during the block period of 1988-89 to 1997-98 and 1st April 1998 to 5th Nov. 1998. (xi) Additional Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Miss. Lata Mangeshkar reported in [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bombay) wherein the Bombay High Court has held that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition when there was no direct evidence of persons having made payments in 'black'. (xii) CIT and Another vs. Yashoda Shetty reported in [2015] 371 ITR 75 (karn) wherein the Court held that on basis of incriminating material found in course of survey merely because same was put to assessee and his statement was recorded subsequent to search, same could not be held to be relatable to assessee and that therefore the authorities were justified in holding that material found in course of survey could become subject matter of regular assessment and it could not become subject matter of block assessment. (xiii) CIT vs. T. Sivaprabhaskar reported in [2011] 238 CTR 457 wherein the Court held that the assessment not based on any material found during the search but was based on the statement of one T-Block assessment was invalid and rightly set aside by the Tribunal. (xiv) CIT Vs. (xiii) CIT vs. T. Sivaprabhaskar reported in [2011] 238 CTR 457 wherein the Court held that the assessment not based on any material found during the search but was based on the statement of one T-Block assessment was invalid and rightly set aside by the Tribunal. (xiv) CIT Vs. R.M.L. Mehrotra reported in [2010] 320 ITR 403 wherein the Court held that undisclosed income of the block period has to be determined on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with the AO and relatable to such evidence, the AO cannot compute the income on the basis of best judgment and that if the AO had come to the conclusion that some other income of the assessee (unconnected with the materials found at the time of search) has escaped assessment he is at liberty to initiate the proceedings u/s.147/148 in accordance with law. (xv) CIT vs. S. Ajit Kumar reported in [2008] 300 ITR 152 (Madras) wherein the Madras High Court has held that material or information found at the premises of the EC in the course of survey proceedings could not be made a basis for making any addition in the block assessment. 7. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having gone through the records of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are justified in passing the impugned orders. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. It is required to be noted that if the disclosure of undisclosed income is made, there may be reasonable presumption that the disclosure is not made voluntarily and therefore any addition made only on the basis of said disclosure without bringing out material/evidence cannot be sustained. Moreover, no assessee would incriminate himself and agree for payment of taxes unless some evidence is found against him. No incriminating material was found during the search or even the post search proceedings. Moreover, the material found during the search operation from the business premises of the assessee or from the premises of other persons cannot be used in the block assessment proceedings. No incriminating material was found during the search or even the post search proceedings. Moreover, the material found during the search operation from the business premises of the assessee or from the premises of other persons cannot be used in the block assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal has discussed each and every issue in detail which is just and proper and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is required to be confirmed and the questions raised in the present appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. Accordingly, the question raised in the present appeal is answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.