Judgment 1. All these cases have come up before this Court on reference being made by the Income Tax Tribunal. 2. The substantial question of law which was referred to this Court reads as follows: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Income Tax Officer on account of "Auto-Rickshow difference" as appearing from the documents seized from the premises of the assessee? 3. The short facts giving rise to these references are as follows: The business premises of the assessee was searched on 18.7.2005 on the information received by the department that the assessee was not paying taxes commensurate with income derived from the business. In course of search and seizure, several documents were seized pertaining to dealing of auto-rickshaw and the authorities came to a conclusion that there was suppression by the assessee of income to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs and odd. Accordingly, the Assessment Officer directed for addition. The matter went to the Income Tax Appellate Authority where also appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The matter ultimately went to the Income Tax Tribunal at the behest of the assessee. Income Tax Tribunal on appreciation of facts and submissions of the parties, held that the assessing authorities had not directed for addition properly inasmuch as the proper entries were not made in the search and seizure as they were not based on legal evidence. It further held that the assessing authority assessed the properties of the assessee on the basis of certain books of accounts seized but had not considered as to whether there had been actual accrual on account of booking of auto-rickshaw etc. On behalf of Revenue, however, the matter was referred to this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act who have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the assessing officer, the appellate authority and the Income Tax Tribunal. 4. Mr. L.N. Rastogi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that onus had completely shifted on the assessee to prove that the books of accounts which were seized were not connected with the business transaction and, ex facie, it would appear that the onus, however, was not discharged by the assessee in the proper manner. 4. Mr. L.N. Rastogi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that onus had completely shifted on the assessee to prove that the books of accounts which were seized were not connected with the business transaction and, ex facie, it would appear that the onus, however, was not discharged by the assessee in the proper manner. Learned Counsel further submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is based on no material and, accordingly, it is based on surmises and conjectures. 5. It is true that in course of search and seizure certain books of accounts were seized from the business premises of the assessee but that does not appear to be legal evidence to attach those books of accounts pertaining to the actual accrual of income. The facts of the case is that certain auto-rickshaws were booked and entries accordingly were made in the books of accounts but actual accrual had not taken place. The Tribunal, keeping in view this aspect of the matter held that the addition was not proper and, therefore, directed for deletion of the same. 6. The reasonings arrived at by the Tribunal, in our opinion, cannot be said to be otherwise bad either on facts or in law. On facts the findings recorded by the Tribunal are final and no interference would be required from this end. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the reference made by the tribunal is answered in affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 8. This disposes of these reference cases.