Block assessment admissions and seized material govern whether unexplained income and capital gains can be taxed as undisclosed income.

Admissions made by a deceased assessee during search bound the legal representatives in block assessment, and such factual admissions could not be retracted by others. Additions had to rest on seized or corroborative material: unexplained credits and amounts supported by search records were sustained, while items explained by fund-flow statements, ledger entries, cheque trails, or prior returns were deleted or excluded from the block period. Capital gains arising from share transactions were also treated as not assessable as undisclosed income where earlier decisions in the same assessee's matters had already covered the issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether admissions made by the deceased assessee and offered undisclosed income could be retracted by the legal representatives and excluded from block assessment; (ii) whether additions of admitted or explained amounts were rightly deleted or sustained on the basis of seized material and other records; (iii) whether the impugned capital gains and later return income could be treated as undisclosed income in block assessment.

Issue (i): Whether admissions made by the deceased assessee and offered undisclosed income could be retracted by the legal representatives and excluded from block assessment.

Analysis: Admissions made by the deceased during search proceedings bound the legal representatives, who stepped into his shoes under the statutory scheme governing legal representatives. The principle that an admission is not conclusive applies only to the person who made it, and a retraction on facts could not be made by others. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate or estoppel could not defeat a charge not authorised by law, but where the amounts were otherwise lawfully taxable and supported by search material, the legal representatives could not withdraw the deceased's factual admissions.

Conclusion: The admitted undisclosed income could not be retracted by the legal representatives and the Tribunal was not justified in deleting those additions; the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether additions of admitted or explained amounts were rightly deleted or sustained on the basis of seized material and other records.

Analysis: For the Rs. 15 lakhs item, the assessee itself had failed to explain the credit and the block assessment was sustained. For the Rs. 18,41,159 fixed-deposit principal, the explanation from the fund-flow statement and cash balance was accepted, while the interest addition was retained. For the Rs. 60 lakhs alleged payment, the seized material supported the Revenue's version and the deletion was found unsustainable. For the Rs. 39,68,357 item, the ledger entries and cheque trail showed that it was not an unexplained cash credit arising from search, and the Tribunal's deletion was upheld. For the Rs. 8,16,000 land investment, the materials showed substantial purchases from the purchaser's own funds and not a systematic benami investment by the assessee. For the Rs. 13,51,130 item, income already returned after the search could not again be treated as undisclosed income for the block period.

Conclusion: The additions relating to Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 60 lakhs were restored to tax, while the deletions relating to Rs. 18,41,159, Rs. 39,68,357, Rs. 8,16,000 and Rs. 13,51,130 were upheld; the issue was partly in favour of the Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the capital gains arising from the sale and transfer of shares could be assessed as undisclosed income in the block assessment.

Analysis: The questions on capital gains and transfer of shares stood covered by earlier decisions in the same assessee's matters. On that basis, the capital gains brought to tax in the block assessment were not liable to be treated as undisclosed income, and the challenged findings concerning the transfer of shares did not survive.

Conclusion: The capital gains additions were not sustainable as undisclosed income and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of restoring the additions relating to the admitted undisclosed income and certain specific unexplained items, while the remaining deletions and exclusions made by the Tribunal were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In block assessment proceedings, admissions made by a deceased assessee bind the legal representatives, but additions must still be supported by the statutory framework and the seized or corroborative material; income already returned or satisfactorily explained cannot be treated as undisclosed income merely because it was questioned in assessment.

---