K.KIRIT & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(1), KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a partial disallowance is appropriate.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in iron and steel trading, faced a 100% disallowance of purchases deemed bogus by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT-A. The adverse inference was drawn due to the assessee's inability to produce suppliers, despite sales not being doubted.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted. 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
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
These are appeals by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has erred in sustaining 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases by common order dated 27.9.2018 for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel. Information was received from the sales tax Department that assessee has that in bogus purchases. The assessment was accordingly reopened. The Assessing Officer in these cases has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase as under :-
A.Y. Rs. 2009-10 67,717 2010-11 1,51,842 2011-12 2,97,626
2 M/s. K. Kirit & Co.
Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT-A confirmed the same.
Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records.
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 this 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 my considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case the 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. However in this regard learned counsel of the assessee has prayed that when only the profits earned by the assessee on these bogus purchase transaction is to be taxed the gross profit already shown by the assessee and offered to tax should be reduced from the standard 12.5% being directed to be disallowed on account of bogus purchase.
Up on careful consideration I find considerable cogency in the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee, as otherwise it will be double jeopardy to the assessee. Accordingly I modify the order of learned CIT- A and direct that the disallowance in this case be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases as reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the 3 M/s. K. Kirit & Co.
assessee on these transactions. Ld counsel of the assessee fairly accepted this proposition.
In the result these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 6.2.2020.
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 →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026