JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmadabad dated 09.02.2016 passed in ITA No. 1970/AHD/2012, the revenue has preferred present appeal with the following proposed questions of law. "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) without appreciating that the additions were made by the AO on the basis of documents found and impounded during the course of survey and on the basis of these, the assessee had made disclosure of Rs. 26,50,000/- which was retracted after 5 months? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) without appreciating the basic rule of evidence that it was incumbent upon the assessee to explain the content of the documents by producing books of account which he never did despite several opportunities given by the AO? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) has deleted the addition made on account impounding material amounting to Rs. 2,35,74,547/-, Rs. 1,73,75,632/- and 1,05,52,455/-?" 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: "2.1. That the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Polythene bags under the name of M/s. Twina Polymers. The assessee was also found to be associated with other business concerns. Survey action under Section under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out on 16.09.2008. During the course of survey, assessee failed to produce the books of account on the ground that books are nor prepared. The assessee voluntarily offered additional income of Rs. 26,50,000/-. However, subsequently, the assessee retracted from the above disclosure of additional income, filed the affidavit to that effect. 2.2. During the course of survey, certain loose papers were impounded. That on the bass of entries made in the loose papers, the AO had made addition of Rs. 2,41,19,547/- under Section 68 in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure B/8. 2.3. The AO also made the addition of Rs. 2.2. During the course of survey, certain loose papers were impounded. That on the bass of entries made in the loose papers, the AO had made addition of Rs. 2,41,19,547/- under Section 68 in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure B/8. 2.3. The AO also made the addition of Rs. 2,47,98,312/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure BF/12 and BF/13. 2.4. The AO also made the addition of Rs. 1,40,56,288/- under Section 68 in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure BF/17. The AO also made the addition of Rs. 2,10,600/- on account of bogus purchases, Rs. 2,22,900/- on account of undisclosed income under Section 68, Rs. 4,25,168/- on account of disallowance of expenses. 2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment order and against making the addition by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). That learned CIT(A) directed AO to make addition of Rs. 1,40,000/- against the addition of Rs. 2,41,19,547/-. The learned CIT(A) upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 13,31,630/- against the addition of Rs. 2,47,98,312/-. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 14,20,864/- against the addition of Rs. 1,40,56,288/- made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure BF/17. The learned CIT(A) deleted the other additions made in respect of bogus purchases, capital addition under Section 68 and disallowance of 25% of total expenses. 2.6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT (A), both the department as well as assessee preferred appeal before the learned ITAT. By impugned judgment and order, learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the department as well as assessee. 2.7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred present appeal with the aforesaid proposed questions of law." 3. Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate for the revenue has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not appreciating the fact that survey action under Section 133 A of the Act was carried out on 16.09.2008 at the business premises of the assessee and during the same, the assessee could not produce the books of account. Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate for the revenue has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not appreciating the fact that survey action under Section 133 A of the Act was carried out on 16.09.2008 at the business premises of the assessee and during the same, the assessee could not produce the books of account. It is submitted that the statement of Shri Chintan Sampat was recorded and it was stated by him in reply to question No. 15 that the books of accounts are not maintained/prepared and that assessee voluntarily disclosed an amount of Rs. 26,50,000/- as undisclosed income for the year under consideration over and above his regular income and also agreed/promised to pay the tax on the additional income declared. It is submitted that however, latter on the assessee filed an affidavit retracting the disclosure of additional income after a period of five months on the ground that due to tremendous mental pressure and harassment which forced him to disclosed the additional income. It is submitted that however assessee failed to prove the same after words. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate for the revenue that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) without appreciating that the additions were made by the AO on the basis of the document found and impounded during the course of survey and on the basis of these, the assessee made disclosure of Rs. 26,50,000/-. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate for the revenue that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of impounding material amounting to Rs. 2,35,74,547/-, Rs. 1,73,75,632/- and Rs. 1,05,52,455/-. 3.2. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the assessee failed to explain the entry made in the loose papers impounding during the survey. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have confirmed the addition made by the AO, which was made relying upon the entries made in the loose papers impounding the during the survey, which the assessee failed to explain. Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vipul Kumar Kirtilal Shah v. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 reported in (2013) 33 Taxmann. Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vipul Kumar Kirtilal Shah v. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 reported in (2013) 33 Taxmann. Com 370 (Guj) and in the case of Rajesh Trade Link (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2013) 37 Taxmann. Com 392 (Guj). 4. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate for the Revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that AO made the addition solely on the basis of the loose papers impounded during the survey conducted on 16.09.2008. 5. Now, so far as proposed question No. A is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such the learned CIT(A) in fact has directed the AO to consider the unexplained amount of Rs. 27,51,496/- as unexplained for the year under consideration. Therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with and therefore, as such the learned Tribunal rightly did not interfere with the same. We concur with the observations made by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal, more particularly, when the learned CIT(A) directed the AO to consider unexplained amount of Rs. 27,51,496/- as unexplained for the year under consideration. 6. Now, so far as proposed question Nos. B and C are concerned, they are as such interconnected. Assessing Officer made the additions of Rs.2,35,74,547/-, Rs.1,73,75,632/- and Rs.1,05,52,455/- solely on the basis of loose papers impounded during the survey conducted on 16.09.2008. Though, the assessee tried to explain the entries made in the loose papers, however the AO did not accept the same by observing that some of the entry did tally with the bank account. Learned CIT(A) on minutely and detailed consideration of the impounded document/loose papers, the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- against the addition of Rs. 2,41,19,547/- and has also confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 13,31,630/- against the addition of Rs. 2,47,98,312/- made by the AO in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure BF/12 and BF/13. The learned CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 14,20,864/- against the addition of Rs. 1,40,56,288/- made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure BF/17. 2,47,98,312/- made by the AO in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure BF/12 and BF/13. The learned CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 14,20,864/- against the addition of Rs. 1,40,56,288/- made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of loose papers inventorized and impounded as Annexure BF/17. While holding so, the learned Tribunal has dealt with the same in extenso in para 6.10, the entries made in the loose papers have been minutely considered by the learned CIT(A) and also considered the remand report. The learned CIT(A) has also noted that the AO after considering the submission made by the assessee gave relief of Rs. 55,96,109/- out of total addition made of Rs. 1,40,56,288/-. The learned CIT(A) noted that amount of Rs. 51,07,617/- was the sundry debtors which cannot be treated as undisclosed income. However, as the assessee failed to explain Rs. 14,20,864/- out of Rs. 1,40,63,962/-, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 14,20,864/-. The same is rightly confirmed by the learned Tribunal. 6.1. Similarly, on analysis of the documents BF 12 and BF 13, on the basis of which, the addition of Rs. 2,47,98,312/- was made, the learned CIT(A) noted that out of addition of Rs.2,47,98,312/- Bank withdrawal was Rs.1,03,84,229/-, for which, source was explained. Thereafter, on analysis of the documents and considering the submissions made by the assessee, thereafter learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,31,630/-. 7. The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal are on minute analysis of the material on record, more particularly, document/loose papers impounded. The aforesaid cannot be said to be either perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. It is in the realm of appreciation of evidence/material on record. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vipul Kumar Kirtilal Shah (supra) and in the case of Rajesh Trade Link (P) Ltd. (supra) are concerned, on considering the facts in the said decisions, we are of the opinion that said decisions shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case of Rajesh Trade Link (P) Ltd. (supra) receipts for payment of Rs. 1,01,000/- as octroi duty on invoice value of Rs. 45,75,000/- were found during the search conducted and it was found that the assessee failed to show that purchase in the books of account. It was fond that since assessee failed to show that the purchase undisclosed in search, were in fact recorded in books of account or that same was related to pre-block period, the same was added as unexplained income. Therefore, on facts the addition as unexplained income was confirmed. 8.1. Similarly, in the case of Vipul Kumar Kirtilal Shah (supra) it was found that during the survey, physical stock verification and comparison with stock reflected in the books of account revealed excess stock. The assessee agreed to computation and closing stock in his statement, however subsequently the assessee claimed that substantial difference in stock was attributable to non reflection of opening stock in computer generated stock account. Subsequent explanation of assessee was not accepted by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal confirmed the addition on account of excess stock under Section 69 B of the Act as undisclosed investment. Therefore, on facts said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 9. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal as sought to be contended on behalf of the Revenue. Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.