JUDGMENT A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the revenue has challenged the order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Ahmedabad (herein after referred to as 'the CIT (Appeals)' for short) in CIT Appeal No. CIT(A)-VII/Wd.3(4)/49/03-2004 as well as the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, (herein after referred to as 'the ITAT' for short) by which the appeal preferred by the revenue challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) has been confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 That the assessee filed return on 20.10.1995 for the assessment year 1995-96 declaring his total income at Rs. 26,580/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After hearing the concerned parties, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that certain purchases shown by the assessee in the books of account were doubtful since the sellers were not genuine one and the assessee was liable to pay the tax accordingly. The said decision was challenged by the assessee by filing CIT (Appeals) and contended that the assessee made payment by way of cheques and therefore there is no question of making false entries in the books of account with regard to the purchase. The CIT (Appeals), by relying upon the decision in case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2015] 58 taxman.com 44(Gujarat), held that the assessee would be liable to pay the income tax only to the ratio of 20% of the amount of purchase value and not on the entire so-called bogus purchase. The said decision came to be confirmed by the ITAT. Hence, this appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the present appeal, the following question was framed as substantial question of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) restricting the additions made on account of bogus purchases from Rs. 25,72,159/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-? 4. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate has fairly submitted that the decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) delivered by the ITAT has been now confirmed by the High Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. 25,72,159/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-? 4. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate has fairly submitted that the decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) delivered by the ITAT has been now confirmed by the High Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the case of the respondent assessee is squarely covered by the above referred decision. 6. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties. Perused the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) as the ITAT and the ratio laid down by the division bench of this Court in case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) and considering the above, we are of the opinion that the present appeal is meritless and accordingly is dismissed.