IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 341/2008  
 . 
 C.I.T                                                             ..... 
 Appellant 
 Through Mrs. P.L. Bansal, Adv. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 SHRI RAM GOPAL AGARWAL                         ..... Respondent 
 Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Adv. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               25.04.2008 
 . 
 Learned counsel for the Revenue has raised two issues before us. 
 In respect of the first issue, it is submitted that the value of the 
 property in Sainik Farms, as per the report given by the District Valuation 
 Officer, was much higher than what was disclosed by the Assessee. 
 It was admitted before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] 
 as well as before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) that no 
 incriminating document was found during the course of search which could suggest 
 any sort of investment made in the Sainik Farms property by the Assessee. 
 . 
 ITR 341/2008                                                               Page 
 1 of 3 
 It has been noted by the Tribunal, by relying upon a judgment of the Madhya 
 Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Khushlal Chand Nirmal Kumar, 
 [2003] 263 ITR 77 that for the purposes of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 
 1961 evidence must be found during search, which would lead to a conclusion that 
 the Assessee had some undisclosed income.  The Madhya Pradesh High Court also 
 referred to a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes being 
 Circular No.8 of 202 dated 27th August, 2002 in which it has been mentioned that 
 block assessment of undisclosed income is to be based on the evidence found 
 during the search and material or information gathered in post-search inquiries 
 made on the basis of evidence found during the search. 
 . 
 . 
 This Court has taken a view similar to that taken by the Madhya Pradesh 
 High Court in L.R. Gupta and Others v. Union of India and Others,  [1992] 194 
 ITR 32 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ravi Kant Jain, [2001] 250 ITR 141 and 
 several other decisions following these two decisions. 
 Insofar as the present case is concerned, there was no material found 
 during the course of the search which would lead to a conclusion of undisclosed 
 income  in  respect  of the property at Sainik Farms.  It is only on 
 . 
 ITR 341/2008                                                               Page 
 2 of 3 
 the basis of the return filed by the Assessee followed by the report of the 
 District Valuation Officer that the Assessing Officer concluded that there was 
 some undisclosed income in respect of the property at Sainik Farms. 
 Under the circumstances, insofar as this issue is concerned, no 
 substantial question of law arises for consideration. 
 Learned counsel for the Revenue says that she would like to look into the 
 issue regarding apportionment of undisclosed income of Rs.10,59,700/-.  Limited 
 to submissions on this issue, the matter is adjourned to 10th November, 2008. 
 . 
 . 
 MADAN B. LOKUR, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN SINGH, J 
 APRIL 25, 2008 
 vk 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITR 341/2008                                                               Page 
 3 of 3 
 .