LATE RAMNIKLAL S SHAH ALIAS MALAVIA THRU L/H SHRI HITESH R MALAVIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in the business of tools, faced reopening of assessment due to alleged bogus purchases. While purchase vouchers and bank payments were provided, suppliers were not produced, though sales were not doubted.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance on account of bogus purchases can be 100% when sales are not doubted, and how to quantify the profit element in such purchases.
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) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are appeals by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases for A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged in the business of importer, stockiest and supplier of various types of tools like hand tools, measuring tools, power tools and cutting tools. The Assessment in this case was reopened upon receipt of information from the sales tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases. The assessee submitted the purchase vouchers and the payments were made through banking channel. However the suppliers were not produced before the assessing officer. Sales in this case were not doubted.
2 Late Ramniklal S. Shah alias Malavia Through L/H Shri Hitesh R. Malavia 3. The income tax officer in this case has made 12.5% addition on account of bogus purchase resulting in disallowance of Rs. 2,32,397/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 4,98,093/- for A.Y. 2010-11. Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT(A) confirmed the same.
Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records.
Upon careful consideration we 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 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 expenses of the exchequer. As regards the quantification of the profit element embedded in making of such bogus/unsubstantiated purchases by the assessee, we find that as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its recent judgement in the case of principle versus M. Haji Adam & Co. (ITA number 1004 of 2006 dated 11/2/2019 in paragraph 8 there off), the addition in respect of bogus purchases is to be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases at the same rate as of other genuine purchases.
3 Late Ramniklal S. Shah alias Malavia Through L/H Shri Hitesh R. Malavia 7. We respectfully following the aforesaid judgement of the honourable High Court set aside the matter to the fie of the assessing officer with the direction to restrict the addition as regards the bogus purchases by bringing the gross profit rate on such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard
In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 15.1.2020.
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 →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026