ORDER

PER BENCH:

These two appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], both dated 11.12.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24 respectively.

2. Since identical facts and issues are involved in both these appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.3895/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23 are stated herein:

3. The Assessee in ITA No.3895/CHNY/2025 raised Grounds of Appeal as under :

“1. The order of the CIT (A), Chennai- 18 dated 11.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083560530(1) for the above-mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case.

2. The CIT (A), Chennai- 18 erred in partly sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of purchases from M/s Syco Leathers (Now Known as M/s AJS Leather Industries Private Limited) valued at Rs.3,49,24,675/- by reckoning the same as business income as against action of the Assessing Officer in reckoning the same as unexplained expenditure in terms of Section 69C of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.

3. The CIT (A), Chennai- 18 failed to appreciate that having not conducted any further enquiry in the hands of other entities with respect to the purchases under consideration, mere emphasis placed on the statement obtained from the appellant during the course of the survey operations under Section 133A of the Act should be reckoned as bad in law.

4. The CIT(Appeals) Chennai - 18 failed to appreciate that materials seized/statements recorded during the course of survey were not in accordance with procedure laid down in the Act / judge made law and ought to have appreciated that reliance placed upon such inadmissible evidences for the purpose of making the disputed addition should be reckoned as bad in law.

5. The CIT(Appeals) Chennai - 18 failed to appreciate that reliance placed on the loose sheets / dumb documents as well as the sworn statement(s) recorded during the time of survey in the absence of any corroborative evidence would vitiate the disputed addition in its entirety.

6. The CIT(Appeals) Chennai - 18 failed to appreciate that having not shared the information received during the proceedings conducted in the premises of the third party for validly coming to a conclusion that other entities had raised fake invoices, demonstrating non application of mind, thereby vitiating the passing of the impugned order.

7. The CIT(Appeals) Chennai 18 failed to appreciate that presumption of bogus purchases as well as under-valuation of stock was made on mere suspicion and surmises and further ought to have appreciated in the absence of material evidence in support of the same, the action in reckoning the same as unexplained expenditure / business income in its entirety should be reckoned as bad in law.

8. The CIT(Appeals) Chennai 18 failed to appreciate that having accepted the disputed purchases being effected during the ordinary course of business pursued by the appellant, thereby demonstrating the same being accounted for business income in the return of income filed, the action in the reckoning / sustaining the same as business income once again should be reckoned as bad in law.

9. The CIT(Appeals) Chennai 18 failed to appreciate that in any event, the assessment of the entire receipts as income without quantifying 'income' component involved was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

10. The CIT (A), Chennai- 18 failed to appreciate that the scrutiny assessment order was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

11. The CIT(Appeals) Chennai - 18 failed to appreciate that the entire re-compu