Held  that the presumption of the Commissioner (Appeals) that no profit rate could be applied on the trading receipts in confirming the addition on a part of the total sale receipts was not justified. He ought to have brought corroborative documentary evidence to disprove the trading receipts shown by the assessee. He allowed the benefit of voluntary disclosure made by the assessee during the search proceedings but ignored the amount of sale found therein, the gross profit on which had already been added by the Commissioner (Appeals).The funds available were explained by the assessee as disclosure made at the time of search and sale receipts declared in the audited balance-sheet showing application of specific percentage profit, which had been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming a separate addition was perverse to the facts on record as the entire sale receipts stood explained.  Held hat the disputed transaction of cash deposit was duly disclosed in the audited books of account as per the balance-sheet, as being from the sale of land, which clearly established that it was a genuine transaction disclosed in the books of account much before the search under section 132 was conducted. The Revenue failed to controvert the fact that there was no physical movement of cash since both parties to the sale transaction had accounts in the same branch of the bank obviating the need to transfer funds from one bank account to another. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed.  (AY.2015-16)