BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

69 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai595Delhi305Jaipur121Kolkata120Ahmedabad69Bangalore68Chandigarh54Hyderabad53Amritsar40Surat33Chennai29Pune25Guwahati23Indore23Rajkot17Visakhapatnam13Lucknow11Raipur9Nagpur9Agra7Cochin5Patna5Cuttack4Jodhpur4Calcutta4Dehradun3Ranchi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14776Section 14868Section 69C68Addition to Income64Reassessment37Section 153A36Section 6829Section 13225Reopening of Assessment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

69C of the Act representing alleged unaccounted expenses for “Vejalpur-503 site expenses” and “Golden Park Society & Golden Society by holding that such transactions belong to present assessee i.e. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT(A) also directed the AO to consider the addition representing the impugned unaccounted expenses in the hands of present assessee and also directed

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

25
Disallowance21
Section 8018
Section 26318

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

69C of the Act representing alleged unaccounted expenses for “Vejalpur-503 site expenses” and “Golden Park Society & Golden Society by holding that such transactions belong to present assessee i.e. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT(A) also directed the AO to consider the addition representing the impugned unaccounted expenses in the hands of present assessee and also directed

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1605/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 263Section 37Section 69C

147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 21.03.2023 assessing Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited vs. Pr.CIT A.Y: 2018-19 the total income at ₹88,37,215/-. The case was reopened on the basis of information received from the investigation wing alleging that the assessee had availed bogus purchase bills through Shri Gurukamal Singh

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1244/AHD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1249/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1251/AHD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1248/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1247/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1245/AHD/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1246/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1250/AHD/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1233/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

147 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by AO in the Appellant's case and rejecting the submissions that the noting in the seized diaries do not pertain to/belong to the Appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

ITA 2135/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

reassessment initiated under section 147 of the Act. After setting out the statutory framework governing reopening of assessments and analysing a series of judicial pronouncements, the learned CIT(A) recorded a categorical finding that the reopening was valid. It was held that the information received from the GST anti-evasion wing regarding the assessee’s transactions with Mahadev Trading

MUHAMMED ARIF SHAIKH,VEJALPUR vs. ASST. UNIT. INCOME TAX DEPT. (PRESENT JURI. - ITO, WARD 3(3)(2) AHMEDABAD), VEJALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1806/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld CIT[A] who confirmed the additions made by the AO by observing as follows: “… … 5.1. On perusal of the assessment order and the case records, it is evident that the case was reopened under section 147 on the basis of credible information received through the Insight portal and the Investigation Wing

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1095/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

reassessment 90,37,67,440/ under due to failure - under Section of the section 68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1096/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

reassessment 90,37,67,440/ under due to failure - under Section of the section 68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years

HASMUKH UGARCHAND GADHECHA, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 591/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

69C of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in not allowing an opportunity of cross examination of persons whose statements were relied upon and personal hearing before confirming addition U/S 68 of the Act 6. Your appellant craves for leave to add, amend or alter

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands in negative

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands in negative

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of accounts for the said amount. The 1st controversy arises for our adjudication whether the difference in 8.1 the balance as discussed above can be made subject to the addition under section 68 of the Act. The answer stands in negative