Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, where the declared sales were not disturbed and the purchases were alleged to be unverified or from unaccounted sources, the entire purchase amount of Rs. 22,50,000 could be added under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or only the profit element embedded in such purchases was liable to tax; and whether denial of cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon vitiated the addition.
Analysis: The assessee was engaged in trading activity and the Revenue had not rejected the sales declared by the assessee. On that footing, the purchases corresponding to such sales could not be treated as wholly non-existent for tax purposes. Where sales are accepted and only purchases are doubted, the settled approach is to tax only the profit element embedded in such purchases and not the entire purchase value, since taxing the gross amount would be inconsistent with the computation of real income. The documentary material seized during search was treated as primary evidence, while the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were only corroborative. In those circumstances, the absence of cross-examination did not invalidate the addition, but the quantum of addition still had to be restricted to a reasonable estimate of profit.
Conclusion: The entire alleged purchases could not be brought to tax under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the addition was to be restricted to the profit element embedded in the purchases.