The Assessing Officer treated purchases as bogus mainly because certain suppliers did not respond to notices issued under section 133(6). The assessee produced complete documentary evidence including purchase invoices, PAN of suppliers, bank statements, e-way bills, transport receipts, GST records and maintained day-to-day stock tally. The Tribunal held that the books of account were not rejected, the sales were accepted, and the purchases were fully supported by documentary evidence. Mere non-response by suppliers to notices under section 133(6) could not justify the addition. The addition was deleted. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained an addition by estimating the profit element embedded in alleged doubtful purchases at 12.5 per cent. The Tribunal held that the rates at which purchases were made from the disputed suppliers were comparable with or lower than purchases from other suppliers and, therefore, there was no possibility of extra profit or inflation of expenditure. In the absence of any defect in the books or evidence of inflated purchases, even the estimated addition was unsustainable. (AY. 2021-22).