IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 10.07.2009 
.
 Present:       Ms. P.L.Bansal and Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocates for the 
 appellant. 
 Mr. Satish Khosla and Mr. Manu K.Giri, Advocates for the respondent. 
.
 +ITA No. 735/2009 
.
 A search was conducted in the residential premises of Shailesh Jain under 
 Section 132 of the Income Tax, as per which various accounts as well as FDRs in 
 the names of various family members were seized.  Assessee herein, is the wife 
 of Shailesh Jain.  Notice was also issued to her for filing Block Returns.  She 
 filed the return declaring her income as NIL, however, the Assessing Officer 
 made three additions in the return namely: 
 (a)  Rs. 2,43,642/- on account of unexplained deposits in FDR. 
 (b) Unexplained investments in Bank account. 
 (c) Rs. 7,84,926/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. 
 In appeal preferred by the Assessee, CIT (appeals) reduced the amount in 
 respect of unexplained investments in jewellery by Rs.1,57,000/-,  so the 
 Assessee preferred an appeal thereagainst and the department also preferred 
 appeals in ITAT vide impugned order, which has allowed the appeal of the 
 Assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.  It is found by the ITAT that 
 the family members had disclosed the jewellery to the department in the regular 
 return filed by the assessment year 2000-01 and the quantum of the jewellery 
 discovered in the search was below that already declared.  Complete details 
 thereof in Tabular Form were submitted before the Assessing Authority as well as 
 before CIT (Appeals), therefore, the Assessee had duly explained the jewellery 
 in the previous return filed and nothing new was found by the Income Tax 
 Department during search.  Same was the position in respect of FDRs.  In these 
 circumstances, we are of the view that the ITAT rightly held that there was no 
 fresh material which came to the notice of the department during search 
 operation and there was no occasion for making block assessment.  We do not find 
 any question, much less than the substantial question of law, has arisen in this 
.
.
 appeal as aforesaid facts could not be disputed by learned counsel for the 
 appellant. 
 Dismissed. 
.
 A.K.SIKRI, J 
.
.
.
.
 VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 
.
 July 10, 2009 
 ib 
.
 #1 
.