JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these Tax Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and with respect to the same assessee but for the different Assessment Years, both these Tax Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "D" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal") in ITA No. 2663/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and in ITA No. 2656/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the said Appeals preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the orders passed by the learned CIT(A), revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed questions of law; (A) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that the addition made by the AO was without any basis, ignoring the fact that the content of the document including cash book found from the business premises of the assessee was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee and as per the provision of Section 292C(1)(ii) the content of such documents are presumed to the true unless proved otherwise by the assessee?" (B) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that the CIT(A) has passed a detailed and reasoned order without appreciating the fact that the CIT(A) directed the AO to make addition @ 13% of the transaction amount paid to the Director of Alok Industries without assigning any reason for arriving at the said rate of 13%?" 3. The facts leading to the present Tax Appeals in nutshell are as under; 3.1 The respondent - assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. It appears that search was conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act on the business premises of the respondent - assessee on 19/03/2008 in which certain documents were found and impounded. During the assessment proceedings and alongwith the return of income, the respondent - assessee produced the audited books of accounts. It appears that search was conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act on the business premises of the respondent - assessee on 19/03/2008 in which certain documents were found and impounded. During the assessment proceedings and alongwith the return of income, the respondent - assessee produced the audited books of accounts. However, the Assessing Officer made the additions solely on the basis of the documents impounded/seized during the survey. Learned CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting the explanation given by the respondent - assessee that the documents seized were incomplete books of accounts and solely on the basis of the documents seized, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the additions. However, on the basis of the documents seized, the learned CIT(A) held that the amount of Rs. 65 lakhs is required to be assessed in the hands of the respondent - assessee and thereafter estimated the GP at 13% on Rs. 65 lakhs. The learned CIT(A) held that the amount to be taxed in the hands of the respondent - assessee is Rs. 45 lakhs being 13% of Rs. 65 lakhs, and therefore, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to make further addition of Rs. 8.45 lakhs in the hands of the respondent - assessee. The orders passed by the learned CIT(A) came to be confirmed by the learned tribunal by the impugned common judgment and order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the aforestated substantial questions of law. 4. We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue at length. We have also considered and perused the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. We have also perused and considered the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal. 4.1 From the material on record, it appears that the Assessing Officer made the additions solely on the basis of the documents seized during the course of survey. However, the Assessing Officer did not specifically reject the audited books of accounts produced by the respondent - assessee. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which was made solely on the basis of the incriminating material documents seized. However, the Assessing Officer did not specifically reject the audited books of accounts produced by the respondent - assessee. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which was made solely on the basis of the incriminating material documents seized. Cogent reasons have been given by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal while deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer, more particularly, when the Assessing Officer did not reject the audited books of accounts produced and relied upon by the respondent - assessee. 4.2 Now so far as the estimation of the GP at 13% on Rs. 65 lakhs is concerned, it is required to be noted that on the basis of the incriminating material, the learned CIT(A) directed to make the addition in the hands of the respondent - assessee of Rs. 65 lakhs. On appreciation of evidence and on the basis of the estimation the learned CIT(A) determined the GP at 13% and the same has been confirmed by the learned tribunal. By giving cogent reasons and on estimation basis, which is permissible, when the learned CIT(A) estimated the GP at 13% of Rs. 65 lakhs, it cannot be said that any substantial questions of law arise. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, both these Tax Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.