Section 69C addition fails where unexplained expenditure is not clearly identified and transaction records support a different receipt source.

An addition under section 69C for alleged accommodation entries or bogus sales cannot be sustained unless the revenue clearly identifies the unexplained expenditure and links it with transaction-wise particulars and supporting material. Where the assessment order does not specify whether the issue relates to sales or purchases, and does not provide dates or details of the alleged transaction, the addition fails. Here, the assessee's bank statements and confirmations showed receipts from a different proprietary concern of the same person, and that specific contention was not rebutted. On those facts, the section 69C addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged accommodation entries and bogus sales could be sustained where the assessment did not clearly identify the transaction alleged to be unexplained expenditure and the assessee's documentary record indicated receipts from a different proprietary concern of the same person.

Analysis: The assessment and appellate orders did not clearly state whether the alleged escapement related to sales or purchases, nor did they furnish the transaction-wise details or dates supporting the addition. The assessee consistently claimed that the payments received were from Hari Om Udyog and not from Jay Matadi Enterprise, and the record included bank statements and confirmations showing receipts from Hari Om Udyog. In the absence of rebuttal of this specific contention and without proper linkage of the amount to unexplained expenditure, the addition under section 69C could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition under section 69C cannot survive unless the revenue clearly identifies and proves the unexplained expenditure with supporting transaction particulars and corroborative material; a mismatch in the alleged party and the proved receipt, without rebuttal, is insufficient.

---