https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202601 Where the AO treated purchase expenditure as fictitious solely because the suppliers were untraceable and did not appear on notice, the HC held that transactions routed through account payee cheques could not be rejected as non-existent absent any other evidence impeaching genuineness; non-appearance years later or closure of business was insufficient. Expenditure was allowed. Conversely, for alleged purchases paid in cash, the assessee produced only invoices and failed to produce the vendors for verification; the HC treated the Tribunal's disbelief as a factual finding based on appreciation of evidence and declined interference. Expenditure was disallowed. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202601 Where the AO treated purchase expenditure as fictitious solely because the suppliers were untraceable and did not appear on notice, the HC held that transactions routed through account payee cheques could not be rejected as non-existent absent any other evidence impeaching genuineness; non-appearance years later or closure of business was insufficient. Expenditure was allowed. Conversely, for alleged purchases paid in cash, the assessee produced only invoices and failed to produce the vendors for verification; the HC treated the Tribunal's disbelief as a factual finding based on appreciation of evidence and declined interference. Expenditure was disallowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202601