ITO - 33(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KETAN GOKULDAS BADIANI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce an addition for bogus purchases from 100% to 5%. The Assessing Officer had made a 100% addition based on information about bogus purchases from the Sales Tax Department.
What were the issues?
The issue was the extent of disallowance for bogus purchases when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal also considered the method of quantifying the profit element in such purchases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM Shri Ketan Gokuldas Badiani
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 21.01.2019 has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.3,12,24,345/- done @ 100% by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) by sustaining only 5% for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12.
The assessee in this case is engaged into the business of trading in personal articles like belts, wallets and buckles, etc.
The assessment was reopened upon information from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee has made Rs.3,12,24,345/- purchases from bogus dealers. The A.O. made 100% addition of the bogus purchase.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITO vs. Shri Ketan Gokuldas Badiani 4. Upon assessees appeal, the ld.CIT(A) noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance upon several case laws and upon the facts of the case, he sustained 5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases.
Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT.
We have heard the learned departmental representative and perused the records. We find that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (in writ petition no 2860, order dt 18.6.2014). In this case the Hon'ble High Court has upheld hundred percent allowance for the purchases said to be bogus when sales are not doubted. However, the facts of the present case indicate that the 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.
As regards the quantification of the profit element embedded in making of such bogus/unsubstantiated purchases by the assessee, we find that as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its recent judgement in the case of Principle Commissioner of income tax vs. M Haji Adam & Co (in ITA number 1004 of 2016 dated 11/2/2019 in paragraph 8 there off), the addition in respect of bogus purchases is to be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases at the same rate as of other genuine purchases.
We respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to restrict the addition as regards the bogus purchases by bringing the gross profit rate on such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITO vs. Shri Ketan Gokuldas Badiani 9. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board on 01.01.2021
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 →- Namastu Enterprise Private Limited vs. Kajalben Maheshbhai Kaklotar (Proprietor Of Khodal Enterprise) And AnrDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Haveli Restaurant And Resorts LTD vs. Shubham Food EnterprisesDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Zydus Wellness Products LTD vs. Tushar Chimanlal Chitalia & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Jsw Mg Motor INDIA Private Limited & Anr. vs. Tristar Auto Agencies (Vizag) Private LimitedDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Amber Nutrition Private Limited vs. Mr Manish Chandak & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026