ITO 27 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs. DIVYESH L. MEHTA, 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 order, stating that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance meets the ends of justice.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT-A's deletion of a 100% addition on account of bogus purchases, where the CIT-A sustained only a 12.5% disallowance. The assessment was reopened based on information that the assessee made purchases from bogus dealers.
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 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 AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO-27(1)(4), Divyesh L. Mehta Tower No. 6, 4th Floor, Flat No. 14, 2nd Floor, Room No.409, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Matru Krupa CHS, 254, Hingwala Complex, Vashi, Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 077 PAN/GIR No. AAGPM 8738 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari Appellant by Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 20.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has deleted the addition of Rs.28,001/- by sustaining only 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 12.06.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. The assessing officer in this case has made 100% additions on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.32,001/-.
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, the Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT.
We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and perused the records. 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble High Court has upheld hundred percent allowances 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 8% disallowance out of the bogus purchases done by the learned CIT-A meets the end of justice. Accordingly we uphold the order of learned CIT-A.
The decision of M/s NK Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT (No. 769 of 2017 dated 16.01.2017 (SC) referred by revenue in grounds of appeal has already been distinguished by Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case of M Haji Adam& co of 20016 dt 11/2/2019.
In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2020
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 →- 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