A.K. Mishra, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal. It is not in dispute that search and seizure operations were carried out in the month of October, 1996. During the course of search and seizure operations at the various residential premises, certain incriminating documents pertaining to Smt. Maya Chotrani were seized. Action under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short " the") was initiated in her case. It is also not disputed that Smt. Maya Chotrani is a NRI resident of Dubai. No search was conducted at her premises.

2. Assessment under Section 158BD, read with Section 143(3) of thefor the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 was completed on November 30, 1998, determining total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 5,06,380. An order (annexure A) was passed by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), Circle-I, Bhopal. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench. The learned Tribunal as per order (annexure B), dated March 23, 2001, set aside the order on the ground that the Assessing Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), Circle-I, Bhopal, had no jurisdiction, the assessment should have been framed by the regular Assessing Officer having jurisdiction under Section 158BD of the. It was directed that the relevant material be handed over to the concerned Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, this appeal has been preferred. It has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law as per order dated October 29, 2001:

(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in annulling the assessment order by observing that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not have valid jurisdiction over the assessee whereas the case of the assessee being connected with the case of Shri Purushottam Khatri where search and seizure operation was carried out as per warrant of authorization under Section 132 of theand in view of Notification No. 1 NOTFN/BPL/95-96 dated April 28, 1995, the jurisdiction over the assessee vested with the ACIT (Inv.), Circle-I, Bhopal and the assessment in the assessees case, completed under Section 158BD/143(3) of the Income Tax Act by the ACIT (Inv.), Circle-I, Bhopal, was valid, legal and within jurisdiction

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the provisions of Section 158BB(1) and 158BB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the honble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that if the total income in those assessment years, in which the return was not filed before the search was conducted is below the taxable limit after claiming the deduction under Section 80L of the Act, the income of that year shall not be considered as part of the undisclosed income and whether such decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not contrary to the scheme of the Income Tax Act

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that if the total income in those assessment years, in which the return was not filed before the search was conducted is below the taxable limit after claiming the deduction under Section 80L of the Act, the income of that year shall not be considered as part of the undisclosed income even when Section 158BB(1)(c) provides that for computation of total undisclosed income of the block period. Nil credit for income is to be given for those assessment years where the due date for filing return of income has expired but no return has been filed"

3. Substantial questions of law Nos. (ii) and (iii) are covered by judgment of this Court in M.A.I.T. No. 7 of 2001, decided on January 25, 2006 CIT v. Vimla Khatri [2007] 288 ITR 168 [LQ/MPHC/2006/112] is not disputed at the Bar. The questions have been decided against the Revenue, consequently for the reasons stated in the judgment dated January 25, 2006, passed in M.A.I.T. No. 7 of 2001, the substantial questions of law Nos. (ii) and (iii) are answered against the appellant.

4. Coming to the substantial question of law No. (i), in view of the undisputed fact that search was not made in the premises of the respondent-assessee, in such a situation in the case of undisclosed income of any other person, Section 158BD of theprovides thus:

158BD. Undisclosed income of any other person.-Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under Section 132A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly.
5. The respondent-assessee was other person as contemplated under Section 158BD of the. She was clearly a person other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 of thewhich is not disputed on the facts. Thus, as per the aforesaid Section 158BD, the relevant material ought to have been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that the Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person as provided under Section 158BD of the. In view of the facts which are not disputed clearly Section 158BD of theis attracted, thus, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), Circle-I, Bhopal, was not having jurisdiction, thus, the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is found to be correct. Direction issued to hand over the relevant material to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person is found to be proper, thus, no case for interference in this appeal is made out. Substantial question of law No. (i) is also answered against the appellant.

6. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.