“9. It is, thus, apparent that the Assessing Officer also had no knowledge as to which import or purchase made by the assessee was not disclosed by the assessee as the Assessing Officer also had no such information. We accept the contention that apart from stating that it had not imported goods of the value as disclosed, it was impossible for the assesseee to dispute the alleged additional purchases. The assessee could not be faulted for not reconciling the data as the information available with the Assessing Officer is wholly insufficient for carrying out any reconciliation exercise. It is obvious that the reconciliation exercise can only be carried out if the details of invoices or Bills of Entry were available. Without such information, it would be impossible to identify the alleged purchases or imports that were subject matter of dispute. If any addition was proposed to be made on the basis that the purchases as reflected in the assessee’s books is not correct and it has made certain imports that had not been recorded in the books of accounts, the least that the Assessing Officer was required to do was to identify the entries that ought to have been made in the Books of Accounts of the assessee and which it had failed to do. Merely proceeding on the basis that CBIC is an apex body and therefore, information provided by it cannot be doubted, without even identifying or meaningfully analysing such information, is wholly insufficient to proceed to make an addition. If the relevant details of the alleged imports were not available with the Assessing Officer, and it was not possible to identify the expenditure made by the assessee, it was impermissible for the Assessing Officer to make an addition on account under Section 69C of the Act. Plainly, if the Assessing Officer could not identify the expenditure made, it could not make an addition on account of unexplained expenditure.
