https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464062 ITAT MUMBAI - AT held the AO wrongly invoked s.69C of the IT Act solely because the seller was declared a defaulter under the MVAT Act. The tribunal confirmed the FAA: sales tax default of another party is not a substitute for proof of non-genuineness in income-tax proceedings. The assessee's bank statements, MVAT declarations, TIN details and stock records were sufficient to rebut suspicion; the AO failed to make independent inquiry. Without proof that purchases did not occur, additions under s.69C could not be sustained, and the AO's addition was deleted. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:02:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464062 ITAT MUMBAI - AT held the AO wrongly invoked s.69C of the IT Act solely because the seller was declared a defaulter under the MVAT Act. The tribunal confirmed the FAA: sales tax default of another party is not a substitute for proof of non-genuineness in income-tax proceedings. The assessee's bank statements, MVAT declarations, TIN details and stock records were sufficient to rebut suspicion; the AO failed to make independent inquiry. Without proof that purchases did not occur, additions under s.69C could not be sustained, and the AO's addition was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464062