Block assessment additions require seized material or reliable evidence; unsupported estimates fail, while mandatory signature rules still govern appeal filings.

An additional ground signed only by the assessee's authorised representative was held not maintainable because appeal papers must comply with the prescribed verification and signature requirements. In block assessment, additions had to be supported by seized material or evidence having a nexus with such material; on that basis, several estimated or unsupported additions were deleted where the explanation was accepted, while additions for subscriber deposits, newsprint purchase, advance payments, bank deposits, interest suspense, unexplained credits, credit card payments, jewellery, and foreign travel were sustained where source remained unproved. Some expenditure heads were remitted for fresh verification. The result was partial relief, with the procedural challenge rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an additional ground filed and signed only by the assessee's authorised representative was maintainable; (ii) whether various additions made in the block assessment on the basis of estimates, rejected cash flow statements, and unexplained credits could be sustained, and which of the individual additions survived scrutiny.

Issue (i): Whether an additional ground filed and signed only by the assessee's authorised representative was maintainable.

Analysis: The filing of an appeal or additional ground had to conform to the prescribed statutory mode of verification and signature. The person authorised to sign the return under the relevant provisions was the person competent to sign the appeal papers, and the authorised representative, by himself, was not treated as the signatory contemplated by the rules. The challenge was therefore examined as one going to the validity of the filing itself.

Conclusion: The additional ground was held to be not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether various additions made in the block assessment on the basis of estimates, rejected cash flow statements, and unexplained credits could be sustained, and which of the individual additions survived scrutiny.

Analysis: In block assessment, additions had to rest on material found in search or on evidence having a nexus with such material. On that footing, the Tribunal deleted the additions relating to fixed deposits in part, difference in cost of construction, personal expenses, household articles, UTI investment, gifts, land purchase, deposit in the proprietary concern, and certain other items where the assessee's explanation was accepted from the cash flow or no seized material supported the addition. The Tribunal, however, sustained the additions relating to subscriber deposits, purchase of newsprint, advance to Vivek, deposits in Canara Bank, interest suspense account, unexplained credits, credit card payments, jewellery, and foreign travel where the assessee failed to establish the source or where the explanation was found unsupported. For some heads, including certain expenditure disallowances and foreign travel, the matter was sent back for fresh consideration because the Tribunal found that the linkage with seized material required verification.

Conclusion: The block assessment was upheld in part and interfered with in part, with several additions deleted, some sustained, and some remitted for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with partial relief to the assessee, the order reflecting a mixed result on the various block-assessment additions and a rejection of the procedural challenge to the additional ground.

Ratio Decidendi: In block assessment, an addition must be supported by seized material or by an explanation failing on evidence, and additions based merely on estimation or unsupported suspicion cannot stand; however, statutory requirements governing signature and verification of appeal papers remain mandatory.

---