ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of a common order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") and hence, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant-revenue has challenged the above referred order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2704/Ahd/2008 and ITA No. 1597/Ahd/2009 by proposing the following two questions stated to be the substantial questions of law: "[A] Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in restricting the disallowance on account of unverifiable purchases merely to 2% of such purchases as against the disallowance @ 10% of such purchase made by the Assessing Officer despite the fact the ITAT agreed with the findings of the Assessing Officer that purchases were from unverifiable sources & assessee itself had admitted that there is possibilities of purchases from unauthorized dealers? [B] Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in considering that disallowance of merely 2% to total purchases will be sufficient to cover the higher margin which assessee must have received in its business operation on account of purchases from unauthorized dealers without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44(Gujarat)?" 3. The assessment years are 2005-06 and 2006-07. In relation to the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,00,51,455/- on account of unverifiable purchases and in relation to assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 69,76,340/- on account of unverifiable purchases. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) to several parties for verifying the purchases. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the transactions in respect of purchases to the extent of Rs. 1,00,51,455/- and Rs. 69,76,340 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively, and held these transactions to be non-genuine. He, therefore, disallowed 10% of the purchase amount on the basis of estimate. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 1,00,51,455/- and Rs. 69,76,340 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively, and held these transactions to be non-genuine. He, therefore, disallowed 10% of the purchase amount on the basis of estimate. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In relation to assessment year 2005-06, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that during the year, the book results of the assessee for the year under consideration were better than the preceding year and that during the year the gross profit had increased as compared to the preceding year and similarly the net profit was also much more as compared to the previous year. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that during the year the gross profit rate was 9.01% as compared to 4.92% in the last year and the net profit during the year was 4.57% as compared to 1.17% in the last year. Since the disallowance had been made mostly in the purchases of garments, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the gross profit rate in the garments division is also higher at 15.29% as compared to 11.91% in the preceding year. He further noted that the Assessing Officer while disallowing the expenses at the rate of 10% had not given any basis for adopting such percentage. While agreeing with the findings of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had not been able to furnish all the correct addresses of the parties concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that considering the higher gross profit rate and higher net profit rate as compared to the last year, it would be reasonable to keep the disallowance at 2% of the purchases and accordingly restricted the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,51,455/- to Rs. 20,10,291/- for the assessment year 2005-06 and similarly restricted the disallowance to 2% in relation to the assessment year 2006-07. 5. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. 6. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned orders by reiterating the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the assessee had failed to produce the parties or furnish their addresses or whereabouts. Thus, the evidence produced by the assessee was not reliable. 6. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned orders by reiterating the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the assessee had failed to produce the parties or furnish their addresses or whereabouts. Thus, the evidence produced by the assessee was not reliable. It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer had found that the sales in terms of the exports had been effected by the assessee and hence it must have purchased goods for export, but since such goods might have been purchased from unverifiable source, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the actual purchase price might be lower than that shown by the assessee. It was submitted that these findings of the Assessing Officer have not been controverted either by the Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, there was no justification for reducing the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer at the rate of 10% of the total purchases which was very reasonable. It was submitted that in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44(Gujarat), this High Court, in a similar case, has held that disallowance to the extent of 25% is justified. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order does give rise to a substantial question of law as proposed or may be formulated by the court. 7. From the facts noted herein above, it is evident that the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer holding that the purchases were unverifiable and therefore, the actual purchase might be lower than that shown by assessee, has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as, by the Tribunal. The short controversy that arises in the present case is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he had restricted the disallowance to 2% of the purchases as against 10% made by the Assessing Officer. 8. As can be seen from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that the assessee failed to produce the parties from whom the purchases were shown to have been made in the record maintained by the assessee. He, accordingly, was of the view that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine. 8. As can be seen from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that the assessee failed to produce the parties from whom the purchases were shown to have been made in the record maintained by the assessee. He, accordingly, was of the view that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine. The Assessing Officer, however, found that the sales in terms of exports had been effected and was therefore, of the view that the assessee must have purchased the goods for export, but that it was not clear as to from which parties the assessee had purchased goods. He, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the actual purchase expenses must be much lower than that claimed by the assessee and was of the opinion that it would be fair and reasonable to disallow 10% of the purchases treating the same as not verifiable. Thus, while disallowing 10% of the purchases, the Assessing Officer has not adopted any specific basis but has merely adopted an ad-hoc basis of 10%, which in his opinion was fair and reasonable. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) while reducing the disallowance to 2% has recorded that the gross profit rate, as well as, net profit rate of the assessee was higher as compared to the previous year. That most of the disallowance was in the purchase of garments, whereas the gross profit rate of the garment division was higher at 15.29% as compared to 11.91% in the preceding year. Therefore, while agreeing with the findings of the Assessing Officer, as regards the purchases being non-verifiable, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found it reasonable to keep the disallowance to 2% of the purchases having regard to the higher gross profit rate and higher net profit rate in the year under consideration. Evidently, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals), while reducing the disallowance to 2% of the purchases, has adopted a reasonable basis, inasmuch as having regard to the gross profit which was already higher in the year under consideration as compared to the preceding year, the disallowance of purchases at the rate of 10% would go to further increase the gross profits, whereas the Assessing Officer, has not adopted any basis for disallowance of 10% of the purchases. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. Thus, as is evident from the facts noted herein above, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 10% of the purchases on an ad-hoc basis, whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has deemed it proper to reduce the disallowance to 2% after considering the gross profit rate and net profit rate. In either case, the disallowance is based on an estimate. While there is no basis for the estimate adopted by the Assessing Officer, there is some basis in the estimate adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, whereby it has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. 11. Insofar as the reliance placed upon a decision of this court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (supra) is concerned, on a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that such decision was never cited before the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, insofar as the proposed question B is concerned, the same does not even arise out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Even, otherwise, insofar as, the decision of this court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (supra) is concerned, that was a case where the purchases were considered to be bogus. Whereas, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has accepted the purchases, but has only found that such purchases had been made from unverifiable sources. The said decision, therefore, would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. 12. In the absence of any substantial question of law, the appeals fail and are summarily dismissed.