INCOME TAX OFFICER, 33(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. CHINTAN GIRISH DOSHI, 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. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified, and 12.5% meets the ends of justice.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce an addition for bogus purchases from 25% to 12.5%. The Assessing Officer had made the addition based on information about purchases from bogus dealers.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is warranted when sales are not doubted, and what is the appropriate disallowance percentage for purchases from grey market dealers.
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 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 of Rs. 3,60,715/- done @ 25% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5% for the AY 2011-12 vide order dated 10.1.2019.
The assessee in this case is engaged into manufacturing of industrial rubber products. The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made Rs. 14,42,862/- purchases from bogus dealers. The AO made 25% addition of the bogus purchase resulting in disallowance of Rs. 3,60,715/-.
Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT(A) has noted that the sales 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.
2 Chintan Girish Doshi
Against above order revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. 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 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 I uphold the order of learned CIT(A).
In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Before parting I may add that if the assessee has filed a cross appeal or cross objection and the same has remained unheard, either party may apply for recall of this order so that the appeals can be heard together.
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 271(1)(c)
- 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
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026