The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of Real estate . The Assessing Officer made addition under section 69C of the income tax Act in respect of certain parties based on the report of Sales Tax Department . On appeal the CIT(A) called for remand report and after considering the explanation of the assessee estimated income at 12. 5% of alleged bogus purchases in respect of all the parties . In respect of two parties they have not provided the bank statements . On appeal the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT( A) .On appeal by the Revenue the Court held that  if the approach of the Appellate Authorities is accepted, then the provision of Section 69C, which is an enabling provision, would become redundant. Section 69C provides that where an assessee has incurred any expenditure and offers no explanation about the source of expenditure or the explanation offered is not in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the amount of expenditure may be deemed to be the income of the assessee and such unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income.  The Court observed that if the approach of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is accepted, then it would amount to endorsing outright conduct of illegality contrary to the express provisions of Section 69C of the Act, which the Appellate Authorities have entirely ignored. On the facts the Officer has done independent verification and has come to a conclusion that with respect to these two parties in the absence of bank statements, the purchases cannot be said to have been proved.  With respect to the purchases from M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders are concerned, the question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. The order of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is reversed insofar as the purchases from these two parties are concerned. However the total additions would not exceed Rs.1,00,10,773, which is the total purchase from M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders.  The High Court considered the ratio of following cases laws and distinguished on facts.  PCIT v. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom) (HC ),    PCIT v. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd,  ITXA/1940 /2017,dt. 29 -1 -2020 (Bom)(HC) ,  P CIT v. JK Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 220 (Bom)( HC)    Pr. CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd  [2020] [2020] 273 Taxman 167( Bom)( HC)  (SLP of Revenue is dismissed ) [2022] 288 Taxman 661(SC)  PCIT v. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia[2018] 94 taxmann.com 324 (Guj.)(HC) /  (2018] 256 Taxman 213 (SC),  CIT v. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd( 2019] 103 taxmann.com 178 (Cal.)(HC)  ,  PCIT v. . Ram Builders.(2023) 454 ITR 444 ( Bom)( HC) ,   PCIT v.  S V . Jiwani [2022] 449 ITR 583 (Bom)(( HC),      PCIT v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 152 (Bom)( HC)       PCIT  v. . JWC Logistic Park (P.) Ltd [2018] 100 taxmann.com 355 (SC ) , CITv. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC) ,    Babulal C. Borana v. ITO  (2006] 282 ITR 251 (Bom)( HC)  (ITA No. 719 of 2018 dt 5-3 -2025 )( AY. 2010 -11 )