SHRI BHURARAM VIRDAJI CHOUDHARY (PROPRIETOR OF M/S.GAURAVA STEEL),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

The Assessing Officer in these cases has made 12.5% addition on account of bogus purchases.

Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

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 purchases. Adverse inferences have been drawn due to the 2 Shri Bhuraram Virdaji Choudhary 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, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (in WP No. 2860, order dated 18.6.2014). In this case Hon'ble High Court has upheld 100% 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 nonpayment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. As regards the quantification of the profit element embedded in making of such bogus/unsubstantiated purchases by the assessee, we find that as held by honourable High Court of Bombay in its recent judgement in the case of PCIT Vs. Mohommad Haji Adam (Income Tax Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 vide Judgement dated 23.4.2019), the addition in respect of bogus purchases is to be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases at the same rate as of other genuine purchases. The observation of the honourable High Court is reproduced as under:- In the present case, as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three entities who were indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal would suggest that the department had not disputed the assessee's sales. There was no discrepancy between the purchases shown by the assessee and the sales declared. That being the position, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing the sales in case of a trader. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly restricted the additions limited to the extent of bringing the G.P. rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K.

We respectfully following the aforesaid judgement of the honourable High Court set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to restrict the addition as regards the bogus purchases by bringing the gross profit rate on such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Learned Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above proposition.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 9.5.2019.