Held that in the order of the Assessing Officer there was no whisper of rebuttal of the contents of the retraction letter as well as the affidavit filed by the assessee. He had summarily rejected the retraction and proceeded to make the additions in the hands of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also rejected the retraction made by the assessee. The retraction letter and affidavit had been filed within a reasonable span of two weeks from the conclusion of the survey proceedings. The assessee duly explained that being a senior citizen, he was under great shock and mental agony and had written the letter once he was able to recover from the shock of the survey proceedings. It was not a case where the assessee had waited for issuance of the show-cause notice by the Assessing Officer before making the retraction from the surrender. For the two-week intervening period, the assessee had provided necessary explanation, which was reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the case so that the retraction did not lose significance and could not be held an afterthought.  That the stock position was wrongly recorded by the survey team as evident from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), which support the contention advanced by the assessee that the surrender towards excess stock had been wrongly taken by the survey team based on incorrect facts, and that the survey team had completely faltered in determining both the value of stock per books of account and the stock physically found in the premises. The assessee’s contention was, therefore, acceptable. While deleting the addition towards excess stock, the Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded a finding that there was, in fact, shortage of stock, which had been arrived at on the basis of material provided by the assessee during the assessment and duly verified by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings and, thus, could not be in dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the shortage of stock as being outside the sale recorded in the books and directed application of gross profit rate of 10 per cent., which was restricted to 8.02 per cent. per accepted gross profit rate for the year under consideration, as alternately contended by the assessee. That the advances noted in the diary seized during the course of survey contained certain names with amounts written against those names without mention of any dates or description to show whether such amounts were received, or paid, by the assessee and the financial year thereof. No documentary material had been found during the course of survey to corroborate such entries nor was there any tangible material in the possession of the survey team to demonstrate that the assessee had undertaken any such transaction with the persons named therein. It was the duty of the Assessing Officer to at least examine such persons to establish the truthfulness of the transaction claimed to be undertaken, which he failed to do. Such noting had no link or connection with the business of the assessee. There was no material justifying the survey team’s seeking the assessee’s surrender, which was taken under coercion and threat and, hence, unsustainable in the eyes of law. The assessee had demonstrated that the statement recorded during survey was factually incorrect and recorded under coercion. The addition made towards alleged advances, which had been sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals), was directed to be deleted. That as for the excess cash found over and above that recorded in the books of account was concerned, the retraction made by the assessee was not factually correct and could not be accepted. The Assessing Officer’s action in bringing to tax the excess cash found during the course of survey, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), was confirmed.(AY. 2018-19)