ITO - 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. ANJAM CHANALAL GOEL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4966/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 December 2019AY 2011-123 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 only a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not justified, as sales require actual purchases. However, purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT-A's order which deleted a significant portion of the addition made for bogus purchases. The assessee deals in sanitary wares and tiles, and the assessment was reopened based on information about 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 for purchases made from the grey market.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Anjam Goel
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Hearing: 05.09.2019Pronounced: 02.12.2019

This is an appeal by the revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has deleted the addition of Rs. 17,45,185/-by sustaining only 12.5 % disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 24.5.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The assessee in this case is engaged into dealing in sanitary wares and tiles. 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 on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 22,50,796/-.

3.

Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT-A has noted that the sale has not been doubted. Accordingly placing reliance upon several case laws and up on the facts of the case he sustained 12.5 % disallowance out of the bogus purchases.

2 Shri Anjam Chananlal Goel

4.

Against above order revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard both the counsel 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 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 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 12.5% 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 N K proteins Ltd. (250 Taxman 22) 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 (ITA no 1004 of 20016 dt 11/2/2019).

5.

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 02.12.2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →