https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262410 A delay of 293 days in filing the cross objection was not condoned because the explanation was vague and unsupported by specific facts, so the cross objection was dismissed as time-barred. Reopening under section 147 was upheld because the original assessment was under section 143(1) and there was tangible material indicating possible escapement of income from bogus purchases. Rejection of books under section 145(3) was sustained where purchases from several parties could not be verified, suppliers were untraceable, and day-to-day stock records were absent. The trading addition, however, was restricted to 15% of the unverifiable purchases, giving partial relief. en-us Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Aug 2015 05:58:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262410 A delay of 293 days in filing the cross objection was not condoned because the explanation was vague and unsupported by specific facts, so the cross objection was dismissed as time-barred. Reopening under section 147 was upheld because the original assessment was under section 143(1) and there was tangible material indicating possible escapement of income from bogus purchases. Rejection of books under section 145(3) was sustained where purchases from several parties could not be verified, suppliers were untraceable, and day-to-day stock records were absent. The trading addition, however, was restricted to 15% of the unverifiable purchases, giving partial relief. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262410