DCIT RG 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ANA DESIGNS P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. However, given the purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only a 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, whereas the Assessing Officer had made a 100% addition. The CIT(A) had noted that the sales were not doubted.
What were the issues?
Whether 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases is justified when sales are not doubted, and what is the appropriate disallowance percentage in such cases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Simit P. Sheth1,465 citing356 ITR 451 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM
O R D E R
Per Shamim Yahya, AM
This is an appeal by the Revenue, wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has sustained only 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases.
The Assessing Officer in these cases has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.49,78,341. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly placing reliance upon several case laws and upon the facts of the case, he sustained 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchase.
Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT.
. M/s.ANA Designs Private Limited. 4. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice.
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. This proposition is supported from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises. However, the facts of the present case indicate that assessee has made purchase from the grey market. Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee selling 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 ends of justice. This is following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [(2013) 356 ITR 451], followed by the ITAT Mumbai Benches in a number of cases.
Accordingly, we confirm the order of learned CIT(A) and direct that the disallowance be limited to 12.5% of the bogus purchase.
In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 16th day of October, 2017.
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 Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026