Court held that the investment made on behalf of the sons in the company was not disclosed in the returns of the assessee. Only on the return filed pursuant to the search, the disclosure was made regarding the floating of the company with the assessee, his wife and mother as partners. This led to the discovery of the investment made in the name of his sons, hence, the assessee having accepted this in the reply submitted to the AO pursuant to the notice issued under S. 132, it is relatable to the search and the addition is proper.  As regards the investment of Rs. 50,000 in the name of HUF was deleted by the first appellate authority. The education expenses also stood confirmed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the information regarding assessee’s son pursuing his education was discovered as a result of search. It is pursuant to that a requisition was made from the school and the entire expenses were detected for the four assessment years; of which two stood explained. The assessee was not able to substantiate the source of income as put forth detected in the two years; allegedly by way of income from HUF, the returns of which were not filed in the relevant assessment year and a gift, which was just a bland statement without any substantiation. The additions made were as a result of the material recovered and the admissions made pursuant to the search directly relatable to the search. On the above finding no question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal and the finding on facts of the AO, affirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are unassailable in the present appeal. S.  158BB speaks of computation of undisclosed income of block period “in accordance with the provisions of the act on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts or other documents and such materials or information as are available with the AO and related to such evidences”. (BP. 1989-90 to 1998-99)