SMT VAISHALI M VAKHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 31(3)(5), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order peculiar and lacking application of mind. It held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, citing jurisdictional High Court precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's purchases were deemed bogus by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on information from the sales tax department. While the AO made a partial disallowance, the CIT(A) enhanced it significantly, leading to the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted and whether the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the disallowance.
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
This is an appeal by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has erred in enhancing to 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 15.3.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and runs her Fairdeal metal and cutting work. 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 Assessing Officer made 100% disallowance of purchase worth Rs. 4,99,296/- and 8% disallowance out of purchases of Rs. 18,60,805/-. The total disallowance came to Rs. 6,48,160/-.
2 Smt. Vaishali M. Vakharia
Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) passed a peculiar order. Fairly he held that the disallowance should be @ 12.5% of the entire bogus purchases of Rs. 23,60,101/-. Thereafter he held that there should be enhancement in as much as the balance outstanding for the suppliers are bogus. Hence, Rs. 17,80,867/- added to be disallowed. Since the Assessing Officer has done a disallowance of Rs. 4,99,296/- he ordered for an enhancement of Rs. 12,81,571/-.
Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. I find that the learned CIT(A) has passed a peculiar order. On the one hand he says that disallowance should be @ 12.5% of the entire bogus purchases. Hence, the addition comes to Rs. 1,34,390/-. On the other hand he says that balance in supplier’s account are bogus. Hence, there should be enhancement of Rs. 17,80,867/-. I note that there is lack of application mind by learned CIT(A).
Be as it may, upon careful consideration I 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. I 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 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. Hence the addition @ 8% proposed by the Assessing
3 Smt. Vaishali M. Vakharia Officer meets the end of justice. Hence, I direct that disallowance should be @ 8% of the bogus purchases. Learned Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by placing the result on notice board on 23.11.2020.
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 →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026