Ranka, J.

The instant appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the order dated 28.1.1999 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (in short "Tribunal"). Substantial questions of law were admitted by this Court for the block period assessment years 1985-86 to 1994-95 and 1995-96 (up to 9.11.1995). In all these appeals, more or less identical questions have been raised and since they pertain to common order of the Tribunal, with the consent of the parties all the appeals are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. The brief facts are that a search and seizure operation was carried on 9.11.1995 under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the residential and business premises of the above assessees situate at A-8, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. During the course of search, bank lockers standing in the name of various family members were also searched on 14.11.1995. As a result, cash, FDRs and incriminating documents were found, seized and taken in possession by the authorised officers of the Revenue. Statements of various members of the family were recorded by the officers under Section 132(4) of the Act. In the statements recorded, Ravi Mathur, who is the key person involved in the various business activities, admitted and surrendered undisclosed investment in the various on-going projects and admitted receipt of un-accounted money from various purchasers of plots. It appears that though the assessee agreed to surrender certain amount on the basis of incriminating documents, cash, jewellery etc., in statements recorded under Section 132(4) on 9.11.1995 and later, however, it was contended by the assessee that the statements under Section 132(4) of the Act was not correct and the amounts which were taken into lakhs are in thousands and attempted to retract from the statements made at the time of search and seizure operation. We deem it appropriate to take facts of DBITA No. 67/2002 in the case of Ravi Mathur, who is said to be the key person and in whose case detailed order has been passed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue, though contended that questions of law have been admitted by this Court, which are general in nature and all the additions deleted by the Tribunal are challenged but he restricted his submissions to the questions relating to the following additions only and, therefore, we would discuss and give our findings only on the question/arguments raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue :-

a. Ashiyana Apartments & Capital Gain : Addition of Rs.31,00,000/- & Rs.13,50,384/- in three hands

b. Jewellery : Addition of Rs.93,575/-

c. Medical expenses : Addition of Rs.99,880/- in four hands

d. Seized documents : Addition of Rs.44,28,500/-

e. Property at Raja Park : Addition of Rs.1,59,333/- in various hands

f. Purchase & sale of plots:Addition of Rs.2,29,533/- in various hands

a. Ashiyana Apartments : Addition of 31,00,000/- & Capital Gain Rs.13,50,384/- each in three hands

4. During the course of investigation it was noticed by the authorised officers that voluminous bills and vouchers, and expenses towards construction of Ashiyana Apartment, were found and seized and the assessee admitted to have made unaccounted investment therein. In the statement recorded at the time of search it was stated by Ravi Mathur that the building is 75% complete and the total investment is about Rs.73,50,000/- (28,000/- sq.ft. x Rs.350/- per sq.ft.) whereas the amount recorded in books is only Rs.45 lakh (later-on found to be recorded at Rs.52,76,457/-). Thus, the assessee agreed to surrender Rs.28,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment/ expenditure. Later-on it was denied and it was pleaded that the statements recorded were under pressure and coercion. The matter was referred to the District Valuation Officer by the AO who determined the cost of construction of the property at Rs.87,70,000/- and finding a wide gap in between the two, an add