MADAN SINGH H. CHOUHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2144/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases would be incorrect. However, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed just, but it should be reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions to avoid double jeopardy.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading ferrous and non-ferrous material, faced a 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases. This disallowance was sustained by the CIT-A, leading to the present appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted, and how to tax alleged bogus purchases without double taxation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Hearing: 18.6.2019Pronounced: 18.6.2019

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 19.9.2018 for A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous material. Information was received from the sales tax Department that assessee has that in bogus purchases. The assessment was accordingly reopened. The assessing officer in this case has made 12.5% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 18,39,170/-.

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT-A confirmed the same. Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records.

4.

Upon careful consideration I find that assessee has provided the documentary evidence for the purchase. Adverse inference has been drawn

2 Madan Singh H. Chouhan 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 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 purchases transaction is to be taxed the gross profit already shown by the assessee @ 8.99% and offered to tax should be reduced from the standard 12.5% being directed to be disallowed on account of bogus purchase.

5.

Up on 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. Id counsel of the assessee fairly accepted this proposition.

3 Madan Singh H. Chouhan

6.

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.6.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →