MAYUR IMMATLAL MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (2)(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified 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 level as other genuine purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trader, faced a 100% disallowance on bogus purchases after the sales tax department informed the assessing officer. While the assessee provided purchase vouchers and made payments through banking channels, the suppliers were not produced, and sales were not doubted.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is permissible when sales are not doubted and what is the correct method for quantifying the addition in such cases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh
Per Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member: These are appeals by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has erred in sustaining 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 30.09.2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 and 18.03.2014 for A.Y 2009-10, amounting to Rs 30,37,859/- and Rs 50,01,418/- respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is a trader of all control panel accessories.
The assessment in this case was reopened upon receipt of information from the sales tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases. The assessee submitted the purchase vouchers and the payments were made through banking channel. However the suppliers were not produced before the assessing officer. Sales in this case were not doubted.
The income tax officer in this case has made 100% percent addition on account of bogus purchase resulting in disallowance of Rs 30,37,859 for A.Y. 2010- 11 and Rs. 50,01,418/- for A.Y.. 2009-10. Upon assessees appeal ld CIT A confirmed the same
Against above orders, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records.
Upon careful consideration, we find that assessee has provided documentary evidence for the purchase. Adverse inferences have been drawn due to the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers. 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 dt 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 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. 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 honourable High Court of Bombay in its recent judgement in the case of principle Commissioner of income tax versus M Haji Adam & Co (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 judgement of the honourable 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. The learned counsel for the assessee fairly agreed to the above.
In the result assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes..
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules on 25/08/2020.
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 →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026