PRADEEP N. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(5), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. Following precedent in the assessee's own case, the disallowance was restricted to 4%.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in metal trading, faced additions for bogus purchases based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer made a 12.5% addition, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance for bogus purchases can be sustained when sales are not doubted, and if so, to what extent.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not explicitly mentioned
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
These are appeals by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld. CIT-A’ for short) has erred in sustaining 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchase by common order dated 13.06.2018 for the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of metal trading. The information was received from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is making bogus purchases. The assessment was accordingly reopened.
The Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) in this case has made 12.5% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.11,68,038/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.14,34,093/- for A.Y. 2011-12. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same.
We have heard both the counsel and perused the records.
Upon careful consideration we find that the 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 the government agency. In the present case, the facts of the case indicate that the 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, this ITAT in assessee’s own cae for A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 08.02.2019 has directed that the disallowance should be restricted to 4%. Respectfully following the precedent in assessee’s own case, we direct that the disallowance on account of bogus purchase should be restricted to 4% . The ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.09.2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026