https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766845 The HC allowed the revenue's appeal in a case involving bogus purchases where the assessee failed to explain the source of expenditure. The CIT(A) had added only 12.5% of the bogus purchases as income, but the HC held this was incorrect under Section 69C. Since the assessee provided no explanation for the purchase transactions' source and failed to appear during reassessment proceedings, the AO was justified in adding the entire unexplained expenditure amount. The HC ruled that appellate authorities cannot estimate profit rates and grant deductions for unexplained expenditures, as this contradicts Section 69C's express provisions. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 May 2025 13:40:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766845 The HC allowed the revenue's appeal in a case involving bogus purchases where the assessee failed to explain the source of expenditure. The CIT(A) had added only 12.5% of the bogus purchases as income, but the HC held this was incorrect under Section 69C. Since the assessee provided no explanation for the purchase transactions' source and failed to appear during reassessment proceedings, the AO was justified in adding the entire unexplained expenditure amount. The HC ruled that appellate authorities cannot estimate profit rates and grant deductions for unexplained expenditures, as this contradicts Section 69C's express provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766845