ITO,WD- 3(3), KALYAN vs. KUMARY C. WARRIER, DOMBIVALI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. It modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that disallowance should be made at 5% of the bogus purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing engineering goods, was investigated for allegedly obtaining bogus purchase bills. The Assessing Officer made disallowances for these purchases, which the CIT(A) partially upheld by sustaining a portion of the suppressed Gross Profit.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted, and what is the appropriate disallowance percentage for purchases 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 ‘SMC’ BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HON’BLE & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON’BLE]
PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM These are cross-appeals by the Assessee and Revenue arising out of common order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of engineering goods. Pursuant to information from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is one of I.T.A. Nos. 4981 & 4982/Mum/2018 AND & 5635/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Kumary C. Warrier the beneficiaries of accommodation entries for obtaining bogus purchase bills, assessment was reopened. AO made disallowance on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 19,11,624/- and Rs. 19,57,455/- respectively. Ld. CIT(A) proceed to hold for A.Y. 2009-10 is a non-hawala year and GP of the same is to be adopted which was 21.61%. Since assessee was disclosed 11.34% for AY 2010-11 and 11.33% for AY 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) granted proportionate relief, he concluded as under: Accordingly the disallowance to the extent of quantum of suppressed GPs i.e. Rs. 5,13,461/- and Rs. 10,19,001/- out of total disallowances of Rs. 19,11,624/- and Rs. 19,57,455/-, in AY 2010-11 & 2011-12, are hereby sustained and balance amounts of Rs. 13,98,163/- (19,11,624 – 5,13,461) and Rs. 9,38,454/- (19,57,455 – 10,19,001), respectively, are deleted.
Against the order, the appeals are before us. We have heard the parties and perused the records.
We find that the assessee has provided the documentary evidence for the purchase. Adverse inference have been drawn due to the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers. We 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 dtd. 18.06.2014). In this case the honourable High Court has upheld hundred percent allowance for the purchase said to be bogus when sales are not I.T.A. Nos. 4981 & 4982/Mum/2018 AND & 5635/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Kumary C. Warrier 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.
In this case, we find that assessee has already disclosed more than 10% at gross profit. In our considered opinion, disallowance @ 5% of bogus purchase, will serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct that disallowance should be done @ 5% of bogus purchases. The decision relied upon by the Learned Departmental Representative are not applicable on the facts of the case as we have already placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as referred above.
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026