In the matter where a search conducted under section 132 of the Act at the assessee’s residential premises, it was noticed that he had indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from various bill traders, and the Assessing Officer had made additions towards similar amounts in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of money siphoned out from the company, the Tribunal held that once the addition was made towards alleged bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee, no additions could be made to similar amounts in the hands of the assessee because it amounted to double addition. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly deleted the additions. Further, in the issue where an addition was made towards unaccounted cash found during the course of a search in the hands of the legal heir of the assessee and a similar addition had been made in the hands of the assessee, it was held that the Department had failed to controvert the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) which was neither erroneous nor incorrect. There was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to delete the addition made towards unaccounted cash found during the course of search in the hands of the assessee. (AY. 2011-12 to 2014-15)