The Assessing Officer disallowed the 100% of alleged bogus purchases . On appeal  the CIT(A)  accepted the sales tax and VAT Audit report restricted to 10 % of alleged bogus purchases . On appeal the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that the goods were  purchased from the grey market .   On appeal the Court held that the sales were not in doubt . Court also held that apart from the inputs being received from the investigation wing, there is nothing concrete in the material on record that was used to confront the Appellant.  If the counterparties in these purchases could not be produced years later, simply adopting a 10% margin for disallowance, without any cogent or convincing evidence, is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is repugnant for the ITAT to uphold such an addition of 10% of the allegedly bogus purchases to the income of the Appellant,  despite returning a firm finding that the AO Order was untenable not being backed by cogent and convincing evidence.  Accordingly the Honourable High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the appeals of the assessee.   Relied on  CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 319 ( Bom)( HC),  PCIT v.  SVD Resins & Plastics (P.) Ltd. [2024] 166 taxmann.com 242 (Bom)( HC) , PCIT  v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd [2020] 117 taxmann.com 625 (Bom) ( HC) (SLP dismissed ,PCIT v.Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd. [2022] 288 Taxman 661(SC)  .(ITA Nos , 1753 / 1759/ 2780 of 2018 dt .15 -10 2024 ) ( AY. 2009 -10 , 2010-11, 2011-12  )