QUALITY ENGINEERING PRODUCTS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, THANE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that while the purchases were suspected to be bogus and there was no evidence of goods movement, the sales were not doubted. Citing precedent, it held that 100% disallowance was not appropriate.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned a disallowance of Rs. 4,24,975/- for bogus purchases, confirmed by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer based the addition on information from the Sales Tax Department and lack of evidence for goods movement.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance of purchases is justified when sales are not doubted and evidence of goods movement is lacking.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM
सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 13.11.2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 14.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This is an appeal by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.4,24,975/- is confirmed.
In this case, the Assessing Officer had made a disallowance of Rs.4,24,975/- being 100% of the bogus purchases. The assessing officer based the addition on the (A.Y. 2010-11) Quality Engineering Products vs. The Asst. CIT basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department that assessee has received hawala purchases. The assessing officer also noted that the assessee had not supplied relevant evidence of movement of goods purchased. Upon assessee’s appeal ld CIT(A) confirmed the same.
Against this order, the assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Upon careful consideration of the facts of the case, I find that evidence in the shape of information from Sales Tax Department have been referred by the authorities below that the impugned purchases are bogus. There is no evidence of the actual movement of the goods under dispute. However, I note that the assessing officer has not made any independent verification of his own. I find sales have not been doubted in this case. It is settled law from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for purchases cannot be done. However, I find that the present case is different from the above case as in that case before the Hon’ble High Court, the sales were made to government department which is not the case here. I find that on the facts and circumstances of the case, a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases would serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, I modify the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct that disallowance in this case should be limited to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
(A.Y. 2010-11) Quality Engineering Products vs. The Asst. CIT 5. The learned counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above proposition.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026