M/S.NELCO STEEL PROP NEMICHAND K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI
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 actual purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases, aligning the gross profit rate on bogus purchases with that of genuine purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in metal trading, faced a reopening of assessment based on information about bogus purchases. While the assessee provided purchase vouchers and made payments through banking channels, suppliers were not produced. The Assessing Officer made a 12.5% addition on account of these purchases, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted, and if not, how to quantify the addition for bogus 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)
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 18.5.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged in the business of metal trading. 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. 1988,837/-. Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT(A) confirmed the same.
2 M/s. Nelco Steel Prop. Shri Nemichand K. Shah 4. Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records.
Upon careful consideration I 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, I find that as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its recent judgement in the case of Principal CIT Vs. M. Haji Adam & Co. (ITA No. 1004 of 2016 dated 11.2.2019 in paragraph 8 thereof), 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.
I respectfully following the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble 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 M/s. Nelco Steel Prop. Shri Nemichand K. Shah
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 14.11.2019.
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026