Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the assessee had furnished the bank statements, tax invoices and ledger accounts of the parties. Similarly, for the commission expenses, the assessee had furnished the details of both parties. Out of four parties, three parties were located at distant places. The Principal Commissioner had not disputed the existence of the parties, nor the payment against the purchases or the commission paid or the evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate the allegation that the purchases or commissions paid were bogus. The order of assessment was not erroneous, and the order of revision was not valid. (AY.2014-15)