JUDGMENT : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. 1. In this income tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated 10.7.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No. 136/Jodh/2017 for the assessment year 2013-14 is under challenged. 2. As per facts of the case, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of gold and silver ornaments. The search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the residence of the assessee on 5.12.2012. During the course of search, the assessee surrendered income of Rs. 1,24,06,251/- on account of unexplained cash, excess stock of gold and sliver jewellery and unexplained advances towards purchase of land. Considering the same, the assessee filed the return declaring income of Rs. 1,42,11,160/- . The Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings observed that on the date of search, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted on Sh. Jaldeep Swami. In the survey various documents belonging to the assessee was found from his premises. One of the annexure was containing 63 pages. In page No. 63 contains a note-sheet regarding purchase of 60 bighas of land at village Bhilwara, Udaipur by the assessee for approximately Rs. 6 crores and as per the paper, Rs. 3.77 crores is received from Sh. Naresh Ji which is shown as used for payment to various persons including for conversion of land and registry expenses. The statement of the assessee on this annexure was recorded in post search proceedings under Section 131. In question No. 3, the assessee stated that he know Sh. Jaldeep Swami from last one and half years, in question No. 4 he stated that he has no jewellery business with him but his family members has some property transaction with Sh. Jaldeep Swami which is subsequently cancelled. The assessee also stated that Sh. Jaldeep Swami is a property broker and therefore, some times he has given photocopies of his property documents for division and mutation. With regard to page No. 63, in question No. 5 it is stated that this paper do not relate to him and he has no knowledge about this paper. 3. As per further facts, the assessing officer recorded statement of Sh. Jaldeep Swami on 23.12.2014 and after recording his statement, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. With regard to page No. 63, in question No. 5 it is stated that this paper do not relate to him and he has no knowledge about this paper. 3. As per further facts, the assessing officer recorded statement of Sh. Jaldeep Swami on 23.12.2014 and after recording his statement, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 3.77 crores to the income of respondent assessee Naresh Singhvi. The assessment order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Udaipur for the assessment year 2013-14 was challenged by the respondent assessee by way of filing appeal under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the CIT (Appeals), Udaipur vide order dated 9.1.2017 partly allowed the same whereby the finding was given by the CIT (Appeals) that in view of the legal position there is no justification in action of the assessing officer in making addition on the basis of such alleged page No. 63 of Annexure AS found from the premises of Sh. Jaldeep Swamy during the course of survey proceedings in his case and no incriminating evidence was found with regard to the payment from the undisclosed source for purchase of land during the course of search. The CIT (Appeals) while giving aforesaid finding held that addition was made by the AO unilaterally is not justified and against the law and also in this case, AO has nothing brought on record for alleged addition. 4. Against the said order of CIT (Appeals) dated 9.1.2017, an appeal was preferred by the revenue. The said appeal was registered as ITA No. 136/Jodh/2017 in which the learned ITAT of Jodhpur Bench affirmed the order of CIT (Appeals) while following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 and judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anil Khandelwal (2015) 93 CCH 0042 and DCIT v. Bhola Nath Radha Krishna ITA No. 5149/Del/2012, decided on 5.4.2013 in which it was held that it is well settled law that loose papers, diaries and document cannot possibly be construed as books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1972. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1972. Therefore, the revenue would not be justified in resting its case just on the loose papers and documents found from third party if such document contained narration of transactions with the assessee. 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in the judgments of CIT (Appeals) and ITAT impugned in this appeal because the same based upon settled principle of law. 6. Consequently, there is no force in this income tax appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.