1. This appeal by assessee is directed against order passed by CIT(A) on 16-3-2005 in relation to Assessment year 1990-91. 2. First two grounds are regarding confirmation of addition of Rs. 97,960 made by Assessing Officer by rejecting loss claimed by assessee in gram. 3. Facts relating to these grounds are that assessee had shown total loss of Rs. 97,960 in this account, which occurred due to transactions done by M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand of Ahmedabad on behalf of assessee. Assessing Officer observed that assessee had neither purchased nor sold gram. However, substantial business was found to have been done by assessee in wheat account. assessee was called upon to explain genuineness of loss incurred on account of transactions done, by M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand on behalf of assessee. assessee furnished necessary details and also copy of account of assessee in books of account of M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand. It was further explained that sum of Rs. 50,000 was given by way of advance to M/s. Kashiram Trilckchand who had carried on transactions on his behalf. Assessing Officer noted that there was no documentary evidence. Such as agreement or contract between assessee and M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand for doing any business. It was pointed out by assessee that in adhat business, no formal documents were required and transactions were entered into on basis of verbal discussion and also through telephone. Assessing Officer observed that assessee throughout year had substantial credit balance in his bank account and, as such, he could have purchased goods at his own. Similarly, it was observed that no prudent businessman would suffer loss for transaction in gram carried on through some outsider when assessee himself had very good business. Considering all these facts, Assessing Officer made disallowance of loss of Rs. 97,960. No relief was allowed in first appeal. 4. I have heard rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. It is obvious that assessee claimed to have suffered this loss on business transactions carried on by M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand on behalf of assessee. total amount of transactions is Rs. 2.66 lakhs and assessee had made advance of Rs. 50,000 which fact has been accepted by Assessing Officer in assessment order. It is also admitted position that assessee had no relation with partners of M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand. Apart from that, it is noticed from copy of account of assessee in books of M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand that apart from purchases and sales, adhat of Rs. 4629.88 was also charged by that party in addition to other selling expenses, warehouse expenses, carriage, loading and unloading expenses, etc. Except for doubting transaction in realm of suspicion, Assessing Officer has brought nothing on record to show that transactions were not real. He even did not bother to enquire matter from M/s. Kashiram Trilokchand who had furnished copy of account of assessee in their books. Before branding any transaction as sham, it is settled legal position that onus is upon that party to show that apparent is not real. Where assessee adduces necessary evidence in support of his case Assessing Officer is duty bound to falsify assessees claim with more convincing and appealing evidence. Mere suspicion cannot lead to conclusion that transaction is sham. Adverting to facts of instant case, I find that assessee had led necessary evidence before Assessing Officer, who rejected same without showing as to how it was not reliable. Considering all facts in entirety, I am of considered opinion that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining disallowance. By reversing impugned order, I direct deletion of this addition. announcement to this effect was made during course of hearing itself. 5. No argument was raised by ld. A.R. with regard to sustenance of small disallowances out of expenses debited to P & L account. It is observed that disallowance represents very small portion of expenditure incurred under respective heads, which has been made on account of lack of proper evidence in support of expenses. In my considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) was correct in sustaining this disallowance. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. *** Anil Kumar Mahipal v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Hanumangarh