“unexplained expenditure”

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and based on fictitious invoices from non-existent or unconfirmed suppliers, the entire amount of such purchases is liable to be added back as unexplained expenditure, not merely a percentage thereof.

When purchases are shown to be non-genuine, the entire amount is to be disallowed as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, irrespective of whether the goods were procured from alternative sources.

When an assessee makes alleged bogus or hawala purchases but subsequently makes genuine sales from those purchases, the addition to income should be restricted only to the estimated profit embedded in such transactions, not the entire purchase value.

When there is a categorical finding that purchases are bogus and from fictitious suppliers, the Assessing Officer is justified in making a 100% addition of the bogus purchase amount under Section 69C, rather than restricting the disallowance to merely the profit margin. This position has been upheld by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of the assessee's SLP.