https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7766 The proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the corresponding proviso to section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be invoked to reject accounts merely because arecanut purchases were supported by the assessee's own bought notes. The accounts were otherwise regularly maintained and accepted for the other commodities traded in, and the absence of independent vouchers was explained by the nature of the business, where sellers were agriculturists and such documents were ordinarily unavailable. There was no finding that the purchases were inflated or bogus. On these facts, the provisos were not attracted, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7766 The proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the corresponding proviso to section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be invoked to reject accounts merely because arecanut purchases were supported by the assessee's own bought notes. The accounts were otherwise regularly maintained and accepted for the other commodities traded in, and the absence of independent vouchers was explained by the nature of the business, where sellers were agriculturists and such documents were ordinarily unavailable. There was no finding that the purchases were inflated or bogus. On these facts, the provisos were not attracted, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7766