ORDER Arun Mshra, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the department aggrieved by order dated 18-11-2002 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal Nos. 357/1998 and 398/1998 relating to assessment year 1995-96. 2. The facts in short giving rise to this appeal are that the Assessee M/s Laxmi Agarbatti Factory, Sagar is engaged in the business of manufacturing incense sticks. Return of income was filed for the assessment year in question on 31-12-1995 showing total income of Rs. 6,47,211. Return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act on 22-2-1996. Survey under Section of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the business premises on 3-10-1994. During the course of survey, a trading account was prepared on the basis of which stock as per books of account was found amounting to Rs. 20,61,886 whereas the stock on the date of survey was worked out to Rs. 40,90,083. There was excess stock of Rs. 20,28,197. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer accepted the book results taking into consideration such type of stock, which was with the Assessee, though bills were not entered in the books of account. Certain bills amounting to Rs. 1,59,755 were also not found during the course of survey proceedings. 3. The assessing officer has added an amount of Rs. 9,16,844 as unrecorded. Being aggrieved by the same, Assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals)). The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced unrecorded sales from Rs. 9,16,844 to Rs. 7,07,079 on the ground that the bills related to composite amount of purchase were available at the time of survey, thus there was no question of making additions in this behalf, therefore, assessing officer was not justified in rejecting those purchases. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed order (A-2) confirming the sale to the extent of Rs. 1,59,755. 4. Revenue and Assessee both preferred appeals before Tribunal, both the appeals were heard analogously and decided vide common order. The appeal filed by the Assessee has been allowed. Entire addition of Rs. 9,16,844 has been deleted, hence instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that no bills were found with respect to the purchase of Rs. 1,59,755 at the time of survey. The appeal filed by the Assessee has been allowed. Entire addition of Rs. 9,16,844 has been deleted, hence instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that no bills were found with respect to the purchase of Rs. 1,59,755 at the time of survey. The Tribunal has not assigned any reason to differ with the finding of Commissioner (Appeals). He has submitted that appeal preferred by the revenue ought to have been allowed. As new material was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), matter ought to have been remitted to the assessing officer. 6. Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has submitted that goods were entered in the stock register, though sales to the extent of Rs. 1,59,755 could not be recorded, however, the vouchers were received later on and they were submitted. The Tribunal has not committed any error of law in allowing the appeal deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,755. The deletion of Rs. 7,07,079 was justified as the goods were not only entered in the purchase register and bills were available at the time of survey and these have been signed by the Inspector Shri R.K. Jaiswal on 3-10-1994. 7. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 9,16,844 for unrecorded purchase based on cogent reasons and material on record ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) having admitted fresh evidence in contravention to r. 46A of the IT Rules ? 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the addition of Rs. 7,07,079 was rightly made by the assessing officer (sic). The Commissioner (Appeals) has given the following reasons in the order to delete the aforesaid amount: 4. The learned Counsel Shri S.C. Diwakar, ITP, who argued the case in appeal proceedings, contended that bills in respect of purchases made from following parties were available at the time of survey and these have been signed by Inspector Shri R.K. Jaiswal on 3-10-1994: Sr. The learned Counsel Shri S.C. Diwakar, ITP, who argued the case in appeal proceedings, contended that bills in respect of purchases made from following parties were available at the time of survey and these have been signed by Inspector Shri R.K. Jaiswal on 3-10-1994: Sr. No. Name of party from whom purchases were made Bill No. & date Amount of bill 1 Industrial Pefumes Ltd., Bombay 1955/14.09.1994 26,617.00 2 S.H. Kelkar & Co. Ltd., Bombay CL-21058/24.09.1994 21,316.88 3 Shrikrishna & Co., Delhi 1975/20.09.1994 76,070.80 4 -do- 1988/24.09.1994 43,940.00 5 -do- 2001/28.09.1994 5,39,136.00 Total 7,07,079.00 5. Thus according to the counsel the assessing officer was not justified in not accepting the above purchases totalling to Rs. 7,07,079. He further submitted that the goods were received on 1-10-1994 and 2-10-1994 and entered in the purchase registers. In such circumstances the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting these purchases. It is interesting to note that the assessing officer has accepted the trading results. The purchases and sales shown in the books have been found to be correct. In such circumstances in my opinion, assessing officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 7,07,079 to the total income of the Appellant. I, therefore, directed to the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs. 7,07,079. 9. It is not disputed on facts that the bills to the extent of Rs. 7,07,079 were available at the time of survey and were signed by the Inspector Shri R.K. Jaiswal on 3-10-1994, they were entered in the purchase register also. When trading results were also accepted by the assessing officer, books have been found to be correct, the assessing officer could not be said to be justified in making addition of Rs. 7,07,079, therefore, deletion ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) of the aforesaid amount is found to be based on cogent reasons. 10. However, with respect to the unrecorded sale of Rs. 1,59,755 , it is apparent that the bills were not available at the time of survey. The purchases were neither found entered in the books on the date of survey i.e. on 3-10-1994, hence purchases were not treated as genuine by Commissioner (Appeals). The finding recorded was based on the cogent reasons and proper appreciation of the facts of the case. The Tribunal has not given any reasons so as to disagree with the aforesaid finding of Commissioner (Appeals). 11. The finding recorded was based on the cogent reasons and proper appreciation of the facts of the case. The Tribunal has not given any reasons so as to disagree with the aforesaid finding of Commissioner (Appeals). 11. The entire reading of the order passed by the Tribunal indicates that since appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed hence the appeal preferred by the Assessee was allowed; no reason has been shown for allowing the appeal with respect to the addition of Rs. 1,59,755 filed by the Assessee. We find order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be in accordance with law, same is ordered to be restored with respect to the amount of Rs. 1,59,755. 12. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law No. 1 to the effect that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition made of Rs. 1,59,755 for unrecorded purchase recorded by the assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals). 13. Coming to the second substantial question of law. It is not in dispute that the bills were signed by the Inspector Shri R.K. Jaiswal with respect to a sum of Rs. 7,07,079 and with respect to certain bills which were forming part of amount of Rs. 1,59,755. Statement of Assessee has not been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as such we find that no prejudice has been caused to the revenue by considering the bills pertaining to amount of Rs. 1,59,755. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered. 14. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.