NARPAT H. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO -19(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5156/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 December 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified 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 trading ferrous and non-ferrous metals, faced reopening of assessment due to alleged bogus purchases. Despite providing purchase vouchers and banking channel payments, the suppliers were not produced, leading to a 12.5% addition on purchases.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the extent of disallowance for purchases where suppliers could not be produced, despite documentary evidence and banking transactions, and when sales were not disputed.

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 Mahavir Singh (JM) & Shri Shamim Yahya (AM)

For Appellant: Shri K.J. Bafna
For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Hearing: 19.09.2019Pronounced: 03.12.2019

This is an appeal 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, vide order dated 13.7.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. 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. The income tax officer in this case has made 12.5% addition on account of bogus purchase resulting in disallowance of Rs. 7,19,770/- .

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT A confirmed the same.

2 Shri Narpat H. Mehta

4.

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 inference has 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 expense 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 honourable High Court of Bombay in its recent judgement in the case of principle Commissioner of income tax versus M. Haji Adam & Co. (ITA number 1004 of 2016 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.

5.

We respectfully following the aforesaid judgement of the Honourable High Court set aside the matter to the file 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.

3 Shri Narpat H. Mehta

6.

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 3.12.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →