The Tribunal held that merely because some of the notices were returned with such endorsement it could not be inferred that the purchases were not made from producers and affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal  dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of raw hide purchases made in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 under section 40A(3) and that the purchases were made from the persons covered by the provisions of rule 6DD(e). The payments were made to the suppliers of the hides and skins and considering the nature of the trade, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had accepted the contention of the assessee. The Tribunal was right in affirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). There was no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. (AY.2010-11)