BHAVESH STEELS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(3)(1) NOW ITO WD 26(1)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, dealing in S.S. Utensils, faced disallowances for bogus purchases based on information from the sales tax department. The Assessing Officer made 100% additions for two assessment years and 25% for another, which the CIT-A reduced to 12.5%.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is justified when sales are not doubted, and how to tax profits on such purchases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM)
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are appeals 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, resulting in following disallowances :- A.Y. 200910 Rs. 41,30,902/- A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 86,15,584/- A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 1,00,24,110/-
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is dealing in the business of S.S. Utensils. Information was received from the sales tax Department that assessee has indulged in bogus purchases. The assessment was accordingly reopened. The assessing officer in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchases for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2011-12 and 25% disallowance for A.Y. 2010-11.
Upon assessee’s appeals Id CIT-A reduced the same to 12.5%.
2 M/s. Bhvesh Steels
Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Earlier these appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by an ex-parte order, which has subsequently been recalled.
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 the 12.5 % disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. However in this regard learned counsel of the assessee has prayed that when only the profits earned by the assessee on these bogus purchase transaction is to be taxed the gross profit already shown by the assessee and offered to tax should be reduced from the standard 12.5% being directed to be disallowed on account of bogus purchase. In this regard learned counsel pointed out that the assessee has shown for gross profit in the current assessment year as under :- A.Y. 2009-10 8.33% A.Y. 2010-11 8.39% A.Y. 2011-12 8.94%
3 M/s. Bhvesh Steels
Up on careful consideration we find considerable cogency in the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee, as otherwise it will be double jeopardy to the assessee. Accordingly we modify the order of learned CIT-A and direct that the disallowance in this case be restricted to 12.5 % of the bogus purchases as reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions as above. Ld counsel of the assessee fairly accepted this proposition.
In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 2.8.2019.
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 →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026