These are cross appeals, by Revenue and assessee resident registered firm involving asst., yr. 1980-81 for which previous year ended with Diwali, 1979. assessment has been framed under s. 143 (3) r/w. s. 144- B of IT Act, 1961 and in ITA No. 765 (JP) of 1984, on behalf of Revenue, following grounds have been raised: "Learned CIT(A) has erred in (i) holding that firm M/s. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana & Co., is independent, separate and distinct firm and ITO was not justified in clubbing income of said firm to income of assessee firm. (Ii) directing ITO to delete income of Rs. 1,77,368 from income of assessee firm. (Iii) not holding that firm M/s. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana & Co. Jaipur was extension of business of assessee firm and consequently income was rightly clubbed with that of assessee firm. (Iv) not holding that Supreme Court's decision in case of CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co., reported in (1982) 26 CTR (SC) 411: (1982) 133 ITR 756 (SC) was not applicable on facts of case and that since assessee h d made no claim of deduction under s. 35B in respect of sum of Rs. 10,65,000 (Rs. 15,000 for stationery and printing Rs. 50,000 for postage and Rs. 10,00,000 bank interest on packing credit), before ITO till he framed draft assessment order, nor even included in objections draft assessment order ld., CIT(A) was not justified in entertaining assessee's this ground of appeal, and further in directing to allow deduction under s. 35B in respect of aforesaid sum of Rs. 10,65,000 without allowing opportunity to ITO to examine claim on merits. (V) not upholding addition of Rs. 90,000 made by ITO in respect of unexplained deposits in bank for reasons given in details in assessment order itself". As regards first three grounds, ld., CIT (A) in impugned order, in detailed discussion vide paras 3 and 4 of impugned order held that ITO was not justified in clubbing income of M/s. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana & Co., to income of appellant firm as that firm is independent separate and distinct firm which has been granted registration by Income-tax Department , itself and hence income of that firm amounting to Rs. 1,77,368 clubbed to income of appellant firm is directed to be deleted from income of appellant firm. For purpose, he relied on orders made by ld., first appellate authority in relation to preceding three years as also orders of Income tax Appellate Tribunal for asst., yr. 1977-78. which is since reported as Hazarimal Milapchand Soorana (1983) 6 ITD 49 (Del). Since reliance of ld. First Appellate Authority is on orders of Income tax Appellate Tribunal and since fact and circumstances of case along with stand of parties and reasoning of ld., lower authorities remain same for both years viz., 1977-78 and assessment year under appeal, for reasoning as in order of Income -tax Appellate Tribunal mentioned above, we reject these three grounds of Revenue. As regards ground No. ( iv) appellate firm claimed weighted deduction t stage of ld., IAC but before assessment was finalised and ld., CIT(Appeals) allowed relief to assessee since he was of opinion that claim made before finalisation of assessment was claim made at assessment stage. Reliance was placed of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. (1982) 26 CTR (SC) 411:" (1982) 133 ITR 756 (SC), wherein it has been held that expenditure which had not been claimed before ITO can be claimed for first time before first appellate authority. He also relied on decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in case of one Shri G.N.Aggarwal, since reported as (1982) 1 ITD 77 (Nag). revenue is aggrieved, but we find no force in Revenue's grievance. assessment had not been completed, when claim was made and accordingly it has to be held that claim was made at assessment stage, since proceedings before ld., IAC of IT under s. 144B of Act are assessment proceedings and these are before assessment is finalised. Claim has validly been entertained and allowed by ld., first appellate authority and we find no infirmity in impugned order on issue. Revenue's ground No. (Iv) taken before us also stands rejected. Subject to rider that it shall be allowed on merits after examination by ITO. As regards ground No. (V), addition was made at assessment stage for reasoning as contained in paragraph 20 of assessment order, since Department had found cash amounting to Rs. 1,63,000 at premises of appellant. appellant explained that Rs. 2,50,000 were withdrawn from bank on 1st May, 1979 and out of this amount Rs. 90,000 had been sent to Bombay and deposited in bank there. certificate from Bombay bank which is dt., 14th July 1979 evidencing deposit in file of Revenue. In fact, on 2nd June, 1979 when there was search and seizure operation at business premises as also residential premises of assessee very stand was taken but ITO having not accepted assessee's stand and explanation, made addition of Rs. 1,59,000 in income of Shri Mannalal Soorana, partner of assessee firm and Rs. 90,000 in hand of appellant- assessee. ld., CIT (A) held that assessee has adduced sufficient evidence to prove that amount of Rs. 90,000 was part of amount of Rs. 2,50,000 withdrawn by assessee firm from bank on 1st May, 1979. He further observed that despite search having been conducted on 28th May, 1979, there was no material with Revenue Department to prove that amount of Rs. 2,50,000 has either been invested or deposited by assessee elsewhere. With above observations and reasoning, addition stood deleted and justifiably so on facts, since very first statement made during course of search and seizure operation has to be on facts and in circumstances of case taken as innocent and true one, particularly when there is no contra material with Department for drawing any other inference, coupled with bank certificate evidencing withdrawal of Rs. 2,50,000 on 1st May 1979. impugned order of ld., CIT (A) on above issue also stands upheld, since we fully concur with his reasoning and conclusions. On this issue also Revenue fails. In net result, Revenue's appeal No. 765 (JP) of 1984, fails and stands dismissed. As regards ITA No. 561 (Jp) of 1984, grievances of assessee can be summarised as under: (i) Disallowance of Rs. 11,870 out of foreign tour expenses; (ii) Disallowing claim of weighted deduction under s. 35B of Act on Rs. 2,200; Rs. 700 Rs. 450; Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 11,870 expenditure claimed by assessee to have been incurred on membership fee of Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. Advertisements in Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council's publication out of electricity and water charges; out of office rent; out of misc., and other expenses and out of foreign tour expenses respectively; (iii) Addition of Rs. 2,35,479 in trading results declared by assessee by invoking s. 145(2) of Act; (iv) Disallowance of Rs. 6,045 out of expenditure head legal fees includes Rs. 3,424 claimed by assessee to be travelling expenses of counsels and (v) charge of interest under s. 215 of Act. Grounds taken above disallowance of Rs. 900; 1/5th out of driver's salary and 1/5th out of depreciation on cars though specifically raised as grounds 4 and 5 before us on behalf of assessee were not pressed at time of hearing, hence these stand rejected as such. During course of hearing, ld., counsel also did not press ground taken as 6.1 relating to Rs. 7620 out of legal fees. This also stands rejected accordingly. Further 35B claim deduction on amounts of Rs. 2,200 Rs. 700 Rs. 450 and Rs. 10,000 was also not seriously pressed, hence these, also stand rejected. next common grievance is disallowance out of travelling expenses which stands at Rs. 11,870 along with claim for weighted deduction under s. 35- B of Act. ld., lower authorities are very categorical that about this tour, assessee has not placed on their file any evidence to evidence it to be business tour and in face of categorical finding of two ld., lower authorities, we are not inclined to interfere in impugned order of ld., CIT (A) on this issue. In fact, we adopt as our own, reasoning of ld., assessing officer on issue which on facts does not support assessee's case. Disallowance of Rs. 11,870 out of foreign tour expenses stand sustained and claim of Rs. 11,870 out of foreign tour expenses stand sustained and claim of weighted deduction thereon under s. 35B of Act as natural consequence to above also fails. As regards disallowance out of legal fees which includes travelling expenses of counsels, suffice it say that under s. 80-VV of Act. disallowance has been made justifiably on facts and in law, since expenditure incurred by assessee relates to proceedings before income- tax authority and naturally for determination of any liability under Act, since expenditure i.e., travelling expenses relate to assessee's income tax counsels. No material has been placed on our file for drawing any other inference. In fact, it has been conceded before us that when counsel is engaged, he is not only paid professional charges, but travelling expenses also, hence expenditure falls within ambit of 80VV of Act. disallowance stands sustained. Charge of interest under s. 215 of Act being consequential, effect is to be effect of this order and appeal effect of this order and appeal effect thereof, if any, since it is consequential. In fact, we have not been addressed on this issue by ld. counsel, but natural consequences flowing out of this order must follow. This leaves us all important issue involved in this appeal viz., addition of Rs. 2,35,479 made in trading results shown by assessee by invoking s . 145 (2) of Act. Facts material but briefly stated are that there being search and seizure operation on business and residential premises of assessee on 29th May 1979, Revenue have claims to noticed various discrepancies in accounts and assessing officer, as such, concluded that addition of Rs. 60,727 for under-valuation of stocks. Rs. 86,840 for unexplained excess and shortages of stock, Rs. 24,600 for unexplained excessive shortages in re-cutting and re-shaping was called for and all these additions totalled to Rs. 1,72,168 but finally while framing assessment, assessing officer resorted to s. 145 (2) and estimated sales at Rs. 50,00,000 (as against Rs. 42,50,303) declared by assessee and applied G.P., rate of 25 per cent which resulted in addition Rs. 2,35,479. Since this addition was made in trading results, no separate addition was made. assessee's stand has been that when assessee's export sales accounted for nearly 90 per cent of total turnover and no purchases having been made, but only opening stock having been sold and opening stock being closing stock of immediate preceding assessment year s. 145(2) could not be invoked because accounts were complete and no defects existed therein and shortcomings as mentioned in assessment order are not of nature which would attract s. 145(2). assessee also relied on earlier history of his case where book results have always been accepted. assessee further clarified that excess sales estimated by assessing officer which comes to around Rs. 8,00,000 raise two presumptions viz., that assessee had made these sales in India; and (ii) sales made in course of export out of India are not recorded in books of accounts, but neither can be proved specifically in view of past history of case, more so, when all sales are completely vouched and these were negotiated through bankers. Estimate of sales was assailed and as alternate plea it was contended that in view of shortcomings as pointed out by assessing officer, shortage could be in vicinity of Rs. 5,000 or odd. Reliance was placed on observation of assessing officer on page 10 of impugned assessment order and further on specific issue about no incriminating evidence or document having been found during search and seizure operation. Before us also same stand has been taken and assessee's re-joined on issue as placed at pages 5 and 6 of assessee's paper-book and letter dt., 1st April 1983 explaining factual position has been pressed into service. sum and substance of assessee's stand can be summed up as under: "(2) explanation as regards to discrepancy of stock of firm found at time at search as compared to stock appearing in stock register is as under: That as regards variation in Emerland Cut Stones which was alleged to be excess at time of seizure, it is submitted that said excess represents re-import goods Cts. 404.89 which was received on 28th May 1979 entry of which was to be made next day but before same could be entered in Stock Register, books of accounts were seized and as such same could entered in Stock Register but documents in respect of re-imports have already been submitted for verification for your respect of re-imports have already been submitted for verification for your goodself. balance represents rejections of hardly any value. That as regards Ruby Cut stones total weight as per books is 1332 cts., whereas at time of search stock found in office premises was only 1150.98 cts. Thus, there was alleged shortage of 181.32 cts., which was given for sale to one Shri Bhagchand Soni. That in Ruby Cut stones there was alleged difference of 20 cts., which is on account of difference while weighing, because weight declared by us is taken by electric balance whereas weight taken at time of valuation by Government valuer was by hand weighing machine, and there is possibility of variation in weight, but it will not be out of place to mention that even approximate value of goods is not much. Similarly there is difference of 0.11 cts., in Blue Shapphire Cut Stones, which is only due to difference in weight. That one stone known as Cat s Eye Cut Stone weighing 3.24 carats, value of which was taken by us of Rs. 972, was given to Shri Chiku Mehul Rashmikant for wearing. That as regards Emerald rough stones weighing 1775 kgs., same was given to Shri Abdul Hamid Bhai, Karigar, for selling. balance 1802 kgs, is only difference in imported rough stones which was lying as it is in-tact, totalling 400-490 kgs. That in Blue Sapphire rough stones difference of 15 cts, is only weighing difference. That there is no difference in Ruby rough stones. 10 kgs of Rubby rough stones which were declared as per Stock Register was given for manufacturing to one Shri Kailashchandra Kothari. Silver jewellery and ornaments 2579 pieces were given to one Shri Nilmani for setting stones. As such, there was no difference whatsoever." We having heard parties at length and after perusal of orders of ld., lower authorities and assessee's paper-book are of opinion and do hold accordingly that facts of assessee's case did not warrant application of s. 145 (2) of Act inasmuch as with accepted history, it cannot be held that correctness or completeness of accounts of assessee was not satisfactory or also that no regular method of accounting had been employed by assessee in as much as assessee has been valuing stock as also keeping accounts on same lines as in lines as in past. exchange conversion rate has always been adopted by firm in particular manner and same was adopted for assessment year under appeal i.e., as had since been adopted by assessee in past. There is another aspect of case and it is that this year there have been no purchases, but sale of opening stocks and total controversy revolves around shortage which according to Revenue is excessive, but which according to assessee is reasonable. I n this line of business instead of having own estimates either by lower authorities or else by assessee, it was desired to have expert opinion i.e., association or council dealing with such items of stock jewellery etc., but this has not been done although in line of business assessee in engaged, it seems to be must for proper adjudication of issue. What is to be shortage depends upon stone, its quality and form in which it is to be carved out and it is not lay-man's business. Under these facts, in face of accepted history for earlier years and there being no incriminating material, mush less, cogent evidence during search and seizure operation, s. 145(2) is held to be not applicable although in view of minor discrepancies as pointed out by ITO and put-forth as alternate contention on behalf of assessee, some addition is warranted. We like to emphasis that this is line of business where even best of experts cannot be categorical either about shortage or else waste and placed as we are, cannot adjudicate upon issue about excessive shortage either in re-cutting and red-shaping or else for excess and shortage of stock, but so far as valuation of stock is at issue, it seems to be on same lines as had always been adopted by assessee in all years i.e., in past. Giving due consideration to reasoning of ld., lower authorities and assessee's rejoinder before ld., lower authorities, we are of opinion and do hold accordingly that token addition in declared results of assessee will meet ends of justice. said figure is fixed at Rs. 30,000. rest of addition stands deleted, since in our view, for minor discrepancies this figure should suffice. Before parting we like to reiterate that in trade, assessee is engaged and in his line of business, addition has to be made and sustained on basis of opinions of persons, who have desired necessary expertise and not on basis of surmises and conjectures and leave it at that, since for proper adjudication of issue, those opinion will matter. In net result, assessee 's appeal succeeds partly as indicated above. *** HAZARIMAL MILAP CHAND SOORANA v. INCOME TAX OFFICER