“ 12.1 The Ld. CIT(A) further recorded in his findings that the A.O. has not furnished any evidence to show that export sales have not been done. No enquiry is made from party to whom the export sales have been made. On the face of the documentary evidences on record, in the light of finding of fact recorded by the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A), it is established on record that assessee made genuine export sales through Custom Authorities and received the export remittance through Banking channel. Therefore, there were no justification for the A.O. to make the addition under section 69A of the IT Act against the assessee. No material evidence have been produced on record to rebut the finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Even in the written synopsis filed by the Ld. D.R, nothing is established against the exports made by the assessee. There is no adverse material available on record relating to the exports made by the assessee. In the absence of any material or evidence on record to disprove the exports made by the assessee, we hold that export was made by assessee in his proprietorship concern and there was absolutely no justification for making the addition of Rs.5,23,78,058/- as undisclosed export proceeds under section 69A of the I.T. Act. The export proceeds are recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, it could not be treated as undisclosed particularly, when export proceeds have been received through banking channel. No material has been produced by Department to prove if any incriminating material was found in search that export or export sale proceeds received through banking channel were bogus. May be assessee did not file return for A.Y. 1994-1995, but assessee proved that genuine export sales have been made by him. There was no other income detected by Department. Assessee, therefore, explained Section 69A is not applicable in this case. In view of the above, we are of the view that Section 69A of the I.T. Act is not attracted in the case of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, correctly accepted the explanation of assessee. We, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the assessee and hold that there was no justification for the A.O. to make addition of Rs. 5,23, 78,058/- against the assessee. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting this addition. Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.”
