ITO, 28(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ALI ASGAR G. GILITWALA, 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 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not justified, and 12.5% strikes a balance, considering purchases were made from the grey market.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce an addition for bogus purchases from 29.93% to 12.5%. The Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs. 3,30,525/- on information that the assessee made purchases from bogus dealers.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is justified when sales are not doubted. The extent of disallowance 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, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.3,30,525/- done @ 29.93% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5% for the Assessment Year 2009-10 vide order dated 28.02.2019.
The assessee in this case is engaged in the business of trading in engineering goods. The assessment was reopened upon information from Sales Tax Department that assessee has made purchases of Rs.11,04,326/- from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer made addition of bogus purchase @ 29.93% (at the rate of Gross Profit) resulting in disallowance of Rs.3,30,525/-.
Shri Ali Asgar G. Gilitwala Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) has noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance upon several case laws and upon the facts of the case, he sustained 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases.
Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard the learned DR 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 Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nickunj Eximp Enterprises (in Writ Petition No. 2860, order dated 18.06.2014). 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 assessee has made purchase from 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 bogus purchases done by the learned CIT(A) meets the end of justice. Accordingly, I uphold the order of learned CIT(A).
The decision in the case of N.K. Proteins relied by the Revenue was a dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has already been explained and distinguished by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Adam H. Kazi.
In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Shri Ali Asgar G. Gilitwala 6. 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 ITAT Rules on 17th November, 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 Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026