The assessee claimed expenses for infrastructure project purchases. The assessee was asked to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the vendors. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to vendors, some of whom responded. On the ground that the assessee did not verify the parties or provide vendor ledger confirmation, the Assessing Officer disallowed specific purchases, adding amounts for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance in respect of one party holding the purchase not genuine, citing missing permanent account number, Income-tax return and counter-signed ledger. The Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the second party sustained the disallowance on the ground that the assessee did not deduct tax at source. The Assessing Officer also made additions based on loose sheets and diaries. The Commissioner (Appeals) limited the addition for the assessment year 2010-11 and sustained the entire addition for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made an addition on the basis of the difference between the value shown in the Departmental Valuation Officer’s report and the value shown by the assessee in the books of account. This was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal the Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a copy of the taxpayer identification number of the supplier to prove the identity and existence of business concern. Therefore, simply because the assessee had not filed copies of the permanent account number or Income-tax returns, these purchases could not be treated as not genuine.  That failure to deduct tax at source is  not a valid reason for considering the purchases not genuine.  That the Assessing Officer picked-up certain entries in the diary reflected as cash. The Assessing Officer had not made any sort of enquiry or any investigation to find out whether the entries appearing in the diary reflected that either the assessee had received the payments or made the payments though the names of the persons were clearly mentioned in the entries made in the loose sheets. There was no statement recorded from the assessee during the course of search vis-a-vis the seized material. The Assessing Officer did not undertake a proper investigation or verification and simply added the amounts from the diary as unexplained income. The Assessing Officer also did not verify the contention that the loose sheets were unrelated or meant for site purposes. Consequently matter is  remanded.  That following the Tribunal’s order in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, once the assessee was maintaining regular books of account and in the course of its business the assessee had recorded the transactions in its books of account, then, without pointing out any defect in the books of account and without rejecting the books of account the Assessing Officer could not proceed to make addition on the basis of the Departmental Valuation Officer’s report.(AY. 2008-09 to 2011-12)