AVIDITYA CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS,AMBERNATH vs. ITO WD 2 (1), KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are not possible without purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee, would meet the ends of justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in pharmaceutical and chemicals business, was found to have made bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 3,55,680/- based on information from the sales tax department. The Assessing Officer made a 100% addition on this amount, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted and whether the disallowance should be reduced by the gross profit already offered to tax.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-
This is an appeal by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has erred in sustaining 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 5.4.2019 for A.Y. 2009-10.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of pharmaceutical and chemicals business. Information was received from the sales tax Department that assessee has that in bogus purchases. The assessment was accordingly reopened. The assessing officer in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 3,55,680/-.
Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT(A) confirmed the same.
Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.
2 M/s. Aviditya Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals
Upon careful consideration we find that assessee has provided the documentary evidence for the purchase. Adverse inferences have been drawn due to the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers. We note the Assessing Officer has not even issued notice to the suppliers. Thus there is no independent inquiry by the Assessing Officer. We find that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, hundred percent disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (in writ petition no 2860, order dated 18.6.2014). In this case the honourable High Court has upheld hundred percent allowance for the purchases said to be bogus when sales are not doubted. However in that case all the supplies were to government agency. In the present case the facts of the case indicate that assessee has made purchase from the grey market. Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In such situation in our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case the 12.5 % disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. However in this regard we note that the assessee in grounds of appeal prayed that when only the profits earned by the assessee on these bogus purchase transaction is to be taxed the gross profit already shown by the assessee and offered to tax should be reduced from the standard 12.5% being directed to be disallowed on account of bogus purchase.
6. Upon careful consideration we find considerable cogency in the contention of the assessee as otherwise it will be double jeopardy to the assessee. Accordingly we modify the order of teamed CIT(A) and direct that the disallowance in this case be restricted to 12.5 % of the bogus purchases as reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions.
3 M/s. Aviditya Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals
In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on 1.3.2021.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026