ITO, WARD 3 (3), KALYAN vs. KAMPURATH SIVA SANKAR DAS, 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 33% of the addition for bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance is not justified, as sales are impossible without actual purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee was found to have made purchases from bogus dealers, leading the Assessing Officer to add 100% of the purchase amount. The CIT(A) reduced this addition to 33% after noting that the assessee's sales were not doubted.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted. The extent to which an addition for bogus purchases should be sustained when sales are not doubted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 250 ITR 2236 citing250 ITR 22
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
This is an appeal by the revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[in short CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs. 2,65,465/- done by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 33%.
The assessee in this case is engaged into business of trading in engineering goods and job work. The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers, the AO made 100% addition of the bogus purchase.
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 33% disallowance out of the bogus purchases.
2 Shri Kampurath Siva Sankar Das
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 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 disallowance sustained by learned CIT-A meets the end of justice. Accordingly I uphold the order of learned CIT-A.
The decision of N.K. Proteins Ltd. (250 ITR 22) 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 M. Hazi Adam & Company (ITA No. 1004 of 2006 dated 11.12.2019)
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 on 07.10.2020.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026