Assessee was trading in paper and paper products.  AO  held that as the assessee involved in hawala transactions and substantial purchases made by it were bogus in nature, disallowed purchases and added same in income of assessee as unexplained expenditure under S. 69C  of the Act.  CIT (A) held that even if purchase transactions were not verifiable what was taxable was only income component and not entire purchase.  He adopted average profit rate at 3.67 per cent and disallowed 3.67 per cent of bogus purchases. Tribunal, on appeal filed by revenue, enhanced disallowance from 3.67 per cent to 12.5 per cent of bogus purchases. On appeal by the assessee the Court held that since all authorities had come to a finding of fact that substantial purchases made by assessee were bogus in nature, extent of disallowance did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (AY. 2010-11, 2011-12)