EBRAHIM CURRIM & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO -WD- 18()(4), MUMABI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of umbrellas. Information was received from the sales tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases. The assessment was accordingly reopened. The Assessing Officer in this case has made 25% addition on account of bogus purchases as under :-

Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT(A) reduced the same to 12.5%.

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. In such situation in my considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case 12.5% disallowance out of bogus purchases meets the ends of justices. 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 purchases. In this regard, learned counsel pleaded that the assessee has already shown gross profit of 17% which is duly reflected in the tax audit report. Hence, he submitted that no addition is hence warranted.

Upon careful consideration I find considerable cogency in the submission of the learned Counsel of the assessee, as otherwise it will be double jeopardy to the assessee. Accordingly, I 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. If the GP rate already declared exceeds

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed as above. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 1.7.2019.