PARSONS OVERSEAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified, as sales are impossible without actual purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance would meet the ends of justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a garment exporter, was found to have made bogus purchases based on information from the sales tax department. The AO made a 100% addition, which the CIT(A) reduced to 25%.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the extent of disallowance for purchases where the genuineness was questioned, but the corresponding sales were not doubted.
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)
This is an appeal by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has erred in sustaining 25% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 12.6.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged in the business of garment exporter. Information was received from the sales tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases. The assessment was accordingly reopened.
The income tax officer in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 1,29,350/-. Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT(A) sustained the same @ 25%.
Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.
Upon careful consideration, we find that assessee has provided the documentary evidence for the purchase. Adverse inference has 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 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 situation in our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. We direct accordingly.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 06.01.2020.
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 →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026