ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S HIDE IN, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases, considering that the assessee's sales were not doubted. This approach was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in leather goods trading, faced a reopening of assessment based on information about bogus purchases from the sales tax department. The Assessing Officer (AO) added 25% of these purchases as disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted, and what is the appropriate disallowance percentage for purchases made from the grey market.
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
Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-
This is an appeal by the revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase by Rs. 7,39,938/- done at the rate of 25% by the Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5%.
The assessee in this case is engaged into trading in leather goods and gift articles. The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made Rs. 17,37,660/- purchases from bogus dealers. The AO made 25% addition of the bogus purchase resulting in disallowance of Rs. 957,146/-.
Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT-A has noted that the sale has not been doubted. Accordingly placing reliance upon several case laws and up on the facts of the case he sustained 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases, then sustaining only Rs. 739,938/- as disallowance.
2 M/s. Hide In
Against above order revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard both the counsel 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, 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 the facts of the present 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 done by the learned CIT-A meets the end of justice. Accordingly we uphold the order of learned CIT-A.
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules on 21.10.2020.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026