ORDER : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. All these petitions involve common question of additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of the Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short) and confirmed by the Commissioner in revision petitions filed by the assessee under section 264 of the Act. In Special Civil Application No. 17162/2015, additional question of additional depreciation for installation of windmills also arise. 2. Facts may be recorded from Special Civil Application No. 17147/2015. The petitioner - assessee is a registered company. For the assessment year 2007-2008, the Assessing Officer framed assessment under order dated 28.3.2013 under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. One of the additions made by him was of sum of Rs. 66.95 lacs (rounded off) under section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer put the assessee to notice regarding seized materials indicating, generation of cash and payment to Shri Laljeebhai and Shri Siddiquibhai who were working in one M/s. Sud-chemie India Pvt. Ltd. from whom the assessee company would receive work order for execution on job work basis. The Assessing Officer found that such payments were virtually admitted by the officers of the assessee. It was sought to be contended that by inflating the bills and invoices, the assessee have generated cash which were utilised for the purpose of such payments of commission. The Assessing Officer found that the unaccounted expenditure was established and concluded that the assessee failed to disclose the source of such expenditure. He therefore, had applied section 69C of the Act for making additions. 3. The assessee filed revision petitions before the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner reconsidered the entire issue but eventually confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer. Thereupon, the assessee filed the present group of petitions. 4. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer simply could not have applied section 69C of the Act for making additions. Even if there was any unaccounted expenditure in the form of commission paid to the said two representatives of the company, as long as the source of such expenditure was reflected in the accounts of the company and thus was satisfactorily explained, section 69C of the Act would simply not apply. 5. Even if there was any unaccounted expenditure in the form of commission paid to the said two representatives of the company, as long as the source of such expenditure was reflected in the accounts of the company and thus was satisfactorily explained, section 69C of the Act would simply not apply. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Bhatt for the Revenue drew my attention to the detail discussions in the order of assessment as well as revisional order to contend that on facts, the Revenue authorities when concurrently found that there was unaccounted expenditure and source of such expenditure was unexplained, section 69Cof the Act was therefore, correctly applied. 6. As is well-known section 69C of the Act pertains to unexplained expenditure and provides that where in any financial year, an assessee has incurred any expenditure, and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, would be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Proviso to section 69(C) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, 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. Application of section 69C therefore, requires incurring of expenditure for which he offered no explanation about the source or the explanation which he has offered is not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. 7. In this background, we may peruse the order passed by the Assessing Officer. We may recall, on the basis of materials on record, he came to the conclusion regarding the unexplained expenditure. He noted that the officers of the assessee company had also admitted the commission payment to said Shri Laljeebhai and Shri Siddiquibhai who were associated with M/s. Sud-chemie India Pvt. Ltd. who would provide job work to the assessee. The contention of the assessee that the director Shri Ashokbhai and Shri Nitinbhai after generating such income in the name of commission payable to the said individuals, may have retained such amount for themselves was also accounted for. The contention of the assessee that the director Shri Ashokbhai and Shri Nitinbhai after generating such income in the name of commission payable to the said individuals, may have retained such amount for themselves was also accounted for. In either case, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, it amounted to outflow for the company and would partake the character of unexplained expenditure. In this background, the assessee owed a duty to explain the source of such expenditure. We may recall the explanation of the assessee was that the bills and vouchers were inflated to generate income for payment of such commission. However, such explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment making following observations: "3.15 Another contention of the assessee is that even if it is to be assumed that such payment is actually made, the same is to be considered as explained from the sources of generating cash by booking bogus or inflated expenses as is evident from the correspondence itself. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per the provision of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the primary onus to prove that there was an expenditure the source of which is apparently not explained is on the Revenue. However, in this case, where there is evidence found during the course of search suggesting payment of commission being an unaccounted expenditure, the onus is on the assessee, as per the provisions of section 69C, to come up with an explanation which is cogent and satisfactory. However, the assessee has merely referred to the said correspondence saying that the income was raised by way of inflating or debiting bogus expenses which is explained and thus expenditure being not affected by explanation to section 37 is income and tax neutral. However, the assessee itself has accepted, in the written submission, that it is not possible to provide details of such expenditures which could be said as bogus or inflated and therefore, it cannot be said that source of expenditure in the name of payment of commission has been explained satisfactorily. In this regard, there is one more aspect which requires consideration which is that Shri Rameshbhai in letter No. 4 dated 31.05.2010 has accepted, that the company was under invoicing the bills of M/s. Anchor till two years back and he was keeping the unaccounted income in this regard. In this regard, there is one more aspect which requires consideration which is that Shri Rameshbhai in letter No. 4 dated 31.05.2010 has accepted, that the company was under invoicing the bills of M/s. Anchor till two years back and he was keeping the unaccounted income in this regard. The relevant portion of the said correspondence is reproduced below: In the year 1986 I had my rights over the Agency of Gujarat, which was demanded by you and seeing your position at that point of time and keeping in view my intense love and affection towards you, I had immediately agreed for the same. Thereafter, your position improved and hence, since then I am asking back from you my right over Gujarat Agency. On the Technical base, you got share of 40% to 45% in the partnership and in the line of Electrical Ceramics, because of the guidance of Pujya Bhai and further, since then I am asking back from you my right over Gujarat Agency. On the Technical base, you got share of 40% to 45% in the Partnership and in the line of Electrical Ceramics, because of the guidance of Pujya Bhai and further, since the responsibility of sales rested upon me, and hence, the right over the Agency of Western India was and is mine. If you shall not give me back my right, then I shall feel bad and I shall regret for the same. When you asked for the Gujarat Agency, at that time it was decided to under invoice for Anchor and hence, the cash income of Anchor was coming to both of us. Hence, by keeping a big heart, I agreed to give you Gujarat Agency. But as you are well aware that since last 2 years, Anchor has started buying goods with full bills and hence, now the cash income of Anchor has closed. In these circumstances also, when I am asking back for my Gujarat Agency, you should gracefully return back the same to me. We both have always taken amicable decision by understanding each other. In this matter also, you may do what you think is proper according to you. In these circumstances also, when I am asking back for my Gujarat Agency, you should gracefully return back the same to me. We both have always taken amicable decision by understanding each other. In this matter also, you may do what you think is proper according to you. 3.16 It is evident from the above that the company was not only inflating its expenses or debiting bogus expenses but was also suppressing its receipts by way of under invoicing and in the light of this categorical admission of Shri Ashokbhai even the source does not remain revenue neutral as claimed by the assessee." 8. These observations and conclusions of the Assessing Officer were substantially confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in the revisional order. We do not see any reason to interfere in this regard. Entire issue, as can be appreciated, is based on the assessment of evidence on record. When the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner concurrently found that there was unexplained expenditure and source of such income was not satisfactorily explained, section 69C of the Act would certainly be applicable. 9. We may recall in Special Civil Application No. 17162/2015 there is an additional question regarding additional depreciation. This issue was considered by the CIT (Appeals) in the revision petition. Disallowance was confirmed on the ground that such depreciation was not allowable to assessee who was engaged in generation and distribution of power, since such explanation was included in section 32 of the Act only with effect from 1.4.2013. In this context, counsel for the assessee correctly pointed out that Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Diaminies & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2014) 42 taxmann.com 193 (Gujarat), while considering an identical question held as under: "3. Heard Shri K.M. Parikh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue and perused the impugned judgement and order passed by the ITAT. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the assessee claimed the deduction under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act with respect to the cost incurred by it for installation of the Wind Electric Generator. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same and made the addition of Rs. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the assessee claimed the deduction under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act with respect to the cost incurred by it for installation of the Wind Electric Generator. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same and made the addition of Rs. 1,17,98,030/- by observing that as the assessee is not in the business of generation and distribution of power, the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 1,17,98,030/-. The said addition has been deleted by the CIT(A) relying upon the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of VTM Ltd. (Supra) and in the case of Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (Supra). In both the aforesaid decisions, the Madras High Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue and it is held that while claiming the deduction under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act setting up will mill has nothing to do with the power industry and what is required to be satisfied in order to claim additional depreciation is that the setting up of new machinery or plant should have been acquired and installed by an assessee, who was already engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the relevant provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, which was prevailing at the relevant time, i.e. during the year under consideration, it cannot be said that the ITAT by applying the ratio of decision of the Madras High Court in the case of VTM Ltd. (Supra) and in the case of Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (Supra) has committed any error in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,17,98,030/- on account of disallowance of additional depreciation of Wind Electric Generator." 10. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Assessing Officer and that of the Commissioner in Special Civil Application No. 17162/2015 on the question of additional depreciation on windmills installed by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-2007 is reversed. In other words, the assessee would be entitled to such depreciation as may be available in term of section 32 of the Act. 11. Barring the above, rest of the petitions, including rest of the portion of Special Civil Application No. 17162/2015, are dismissed.