ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogesh B. Shah for the appellant. 1.1 By this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act 1961’) the appellant-assessee has challenged the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat in ITA No. 1671/AHD/2016 for the Assessment Year 1998-99. 2. The appellant-assessee has proposed the following substantial questions of law: “(1) Whether on facts and in law, the Tribunal has substantially erred in law confirming the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 13,67,670/- though the primary evidences like confirmation accounts and acknowledgment of filling return of income Pan Card of depositors and audit report u/ s 44AB of a Chartered Accountant who is like eye witness of having verified the books of accounts and the other related documents is on record of the Department and all these transactions are routed through Bank? (2) Whether on facts and in Law, the Tribunal has substantially erred in law confirming the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- being amount received in advance against goods though all the primary evidence like confirmation letter etc are on the record of the Department and transaction are routed through banks? (3) Whether on facts and in Law, the Tribunal has substantially erred in confirming the other addition of Rs. 43,366 on account of electricity bill, Rs. 90,100 for Millgine store Exp.42,900 for octroi exp though primary evidences were submitted during asstt. proceedings?” 3. This appeal has a chequered history as it is arising out of the third round of litigation between the assessee and the department. 3.1. In the first round, assessment order under Section 144 was passed on 30th January, 2001 and additions were made as the assessee did not produce any books of accounts before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer framed best judgment assessment by determining the total income of Rs. 19,97,720/-. 3.2. The assessee challenged the order dated 30th January, 2001 before the CIT (Appeal) who confirmed the assessment order vide order dated 19th April, 2002. 3.3. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred the Appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 15th February, 2008 set aside the assessment order as well as the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. 3.4. 3.3. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred the Appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 15th February, 2008 set aside the assessment order as well as the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. 3.4. In the second round, the Assessing Officer passed a de-novo order under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act, 1961 on 29.12.2009 making the same additions. 3.5. The CIT (Appeals) by order dated 02.07.2010 in the Appeal preferred by the appellant-assessee only confirmed the additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 90,100/- towards miling expenses and 42,900/- towards the octroi and freight expenses. The CIT (Appeals) further confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,366/- on account of differences towards the electricity expenses and advance of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 3.6. The department, being aggrieved by the addition deleted by the CIT (Appeals) preferred an Appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal again by order dated 27.11.2013 set aside the assessment order and the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) passed in the second round and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. 3.7. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act, 1961 in the third round on 29.09.2014 making following addition of Rs. 18,44,036: (i) Addition on a/c of unsecured loans Rs. 13,67,670/- (ii) Disallowance out of Milgin Exp. Rs. 90,100/- (iii) Disallowance out of Octroi and freight Rs. 42,900/- (iv) Difference in Electricity Expenses Rs. 43,366/- (v) Addition on account of Advance For goods (treated as fictitious) Rs. 3,00,000/- Total Rs. 18,44,036/- 3.8. The assessee thereafter preferred an Appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) by order dated 13.03.2016 confirmed all the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 3.9. The Tribunal in the Appeal preferred by the assesee dismissed the Appeal by observing as under: “5. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We have gone through the detailed finding of ld. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We have gone through the detailed finding of ld. CIT(A) and noticed that assessee has failed to produce books of as accounts, voucrers, bills and Bank Statements before the assessing officer as well as before ld CIT(A). The Ld Counsel in his written submissions stated that if a chartered Accountant gives unqualified certificate in the prescribed form then in that situation books of accounts, voucher, bills, bank statements etc should not be called for either in the case of public company or in the case of private companies where the accounts have been audited by an auditor qualified to audit a public company's account and he has given a certificate, similar to that given in the case of a public company. We do not agree with ld Counsel. The purpose of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) is to examine, books of accounts, voucher, bills, bank statements etc. That is in order to verify the unsecured loan, and advances, the assessing examine books of accounts, pills, bank statements, confirmations etc. Which the assessee has failed to produce before us. The argument of the ld Counsel to the effect that if the assessee submits audit report then in that situation, the assessee need not to furnish books of accounts, voucher, bills, bank statements, confirmations etc. is not acceptable. We have gone through the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and noticed that the Assessee has not submitted any evidence or documents during the appellate proceedings in respect of loans, advances and expenses. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). That being so, we decline to interfere in the order of 1d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). His order on this issue is hereby upheld and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced on 01.02.2021, as per Rule 34 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rule 1963.” 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). His order on this issue is hereby upheld and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced on 01.02.2021, as per Rule 34 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rule 1963.” 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Yogesh Shah for the appellant-assessee submitted that the assessee has furnished all the details before the Assessing Officer in form of confirmation of the loan taken. However, the assessee could not produce the books of accounts and bank statement and other details as per the requisition made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee lost such documents and details over a period of time. 4.2. It was further submitted that the Department could not have filed an Appeal in the second round before the Tribunal in view of the Instruction No. 5/2008 dated 15.05.2008 as the Appeal could not have been filed because of the law tax effect by the Department before the Tribunal. 4.3. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shah relied upon the following decisions: 1. UCO Bank vs. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. (1993) 204 ITR 225 (Ker) 3. Grindlays Bank PLC vs. CIT, (1993) 201 ITR 348 (Bom) 4. State of M.P. vs. G.S. Dal and Flour Mills, (1991) 187 ITR 478 (SC) 5. We have gone through the material on record and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as well as the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On perusal of the orders it appears that there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal to the effect that the Assessee has failed to produced the books of accounts and other relevant materials which was required by the Assessing Officer to inquire into the transactions of unsecured loans undertaken by the appellant-assessee for the year under consideration. 6. With regard to the addition made on account of the expenses also, there is no material available on record as per the findings of fact arrived at by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. 7. Similarly, the addition made on account of advance for goods amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- is also not supported by any documentary evidence. 6. With regard to the addition made on account of the expenses also, there is no material available on record as per the findings of fact arrived at by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. 7. Similarly, the addition made on account of advance for goods amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- is also not supported by any documentary evidence. Moreover, no one has come forward to give statement under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961 and notices under Section 133(6) were not complied with. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that no question of law much less any substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal and accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to cost.