INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE vs. SHRI ANANT SHIVRAM PAWAR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5354/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 January 2020AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a 25% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance is not justified, as sales are impossible without purchases, but acknowledged that grey market purchases provide savings at the expense of the exchequer.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a 25% disallowance on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer had made a 100% addition for bogus purchases, but the CIT(A) reduced it to 25% 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, and if a partial disallowance is appropriate in cases of grey market purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma
For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Hearing: 09.10.2019Pronounced: 06.01.2020

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 5354/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No. 5355/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These are appeals by the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining 25% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide common order dated 18.6.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2010- 11 & 2011-12.

2.

The assessee in this case is an individual. No mention is there about the business in which assessee is engaged in the assessment order. The assessment was reopened upon receipt of information from the sales tax Department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 9,38,175/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 10,91,370/- for A.Y. 2011-12.

2 Shri Anant Shivram Pawar

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT(A) noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly placing reliance upon several case laws and upon the facts of the case he sustained 25% disallowance out of bogus purchases.

4.

Against above order Revenue is in appeals before the ITAT. We have heard both the counsel 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 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 expense of the exchequer. In such a situation in our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case 25% disallowance out of bogus purchase done by learned CIT(A) meets the end of justice. Accordingly, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A).

5.

The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. in of 2003 dated 20.6.2016 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. in ITA no. 1004 of 2016 dated 11.2.2019.

6.

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are stands dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 06.01.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →