Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal was based on the facts proved by the statement under section 132(4) of Pravin Jain, the party in respect of whom the search was conducted. The assessee despite being provided opportunity failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and to produce the parties from whom such transactions were made with their books of account for verification. Indisputably, the Assessing Officer at the subsequent stage had relied upon the statement of Pravin Jain recorded under section 132(4) based on which he had called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions. As regards the contention of the assessee that it was not provided opportunity to cross examine Parvin Jain , the party who had given the statement, firstly, the Assessing Officer himself had required the assessee to produce the representative of the concerned parties along with their books of account and he had failed to produce them. Secondly, no such prayer was ever made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer to summon PJ for his cross-examination. No question of law arose. On merit the Tribunal  confirmed the addition of 15% of alleged bogus purchases  .(AY. 2007 -08)