DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. S S PULSES MANUFACTURING PVT LTD, DELHI

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld.
CIT(A) dated 08.11.2023 pertaining to A.Y 2012-13. 2. The solitary substantive grievance of the Revenue reads as under:
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in low the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C amounting to Rs. 2,63,24,977/- in terms of Bogus Purchase to the extent of 12.5% which comes to Rs.
12,90,620/- even when the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases”.
[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 2 of 16

Page 3 of 16

u/s. 147 of the Act. As already noted, assessee had purchases from the entity involved in issuing bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries. The AO received the information from the investigation wing that the assessee was also one of the beneficiaries. The outcome of investigation of another enforcement department prima facie indicated that income has escaped assessment. The AO accordingly, issued notice u/s 148 on 20.03.2019 after duly considering the information received and recorded his reasons for re-opening by applying his mind independently. The fresh material/information received was sufficient to re-open the case for AY 2012- 13 which was within six years from the end of assessment year. In view of this, the assessee’s plea that the re-opening was invalid is rejected.
During reassessment proceedings, the AO gave an opportunity to the assessee to explain why the bogus purchase of Rs.
1,52,91,807/- from M/s. Shree Hari Trading Co. & of Rs.
1,10,33,110/- from M/s. Subham Agro India should not be disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted that the purchase from the said entity was not accommodation entry and that it was a genuine transaction. However, the assessee failed to buttress his claim and therefore the AO was not satisfied with the reply.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the AO disallowed entire bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,63,24,917/- and concluded the assessment.
5.0
[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 4 of 16

assessee did not respond. In the background of the above facts and circumstances, I give my findings. To begin with, the primary onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases by producing the confirmation parties. Since it was established that the vendor M/s. Shree Hari Trading Co. & M/s. Subham Agro were bogus entity from whom the purchases were purportedly made, no such conformation was provided. The onus was on the assessee to prove that there were no purchases or in the alternative prove the genuineness of purchases by producing the parties from whom the purchases were purportedly made, which the assessee failed to produce do.
5.1
It is well settled law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to Income tax proceedings and conclusive proof is also not necessary to arrive at any conclusion or to establish a fact. The AO is entitled to arrive at a conclusion on appreciation of several facts, the cumulative effect whereof may be considered to judge the soundness of the conclusion. It is conceivable that a mere denial by the assessee is not sufficient to rebut the circumstantial evidence which considered along with the conduct of the assessee has led to the inescapable conclusion that the assessee had taken accommodation entries and alleged purchases were not genuine.
5.2
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of M/s. Sanjay
Oil Cake Industries Vs. CIT (10 DTR 153) and Hon’ble Ahmedabad
Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD
428) has extensively dealt with this issue and came to conclusion that disallowance of 25% of impugned purchases would suffice the DCIT Vs. S.S. Pulses

[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 5 of 16

matter. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Deepak
However, in the Misc. Application filed before it, the Hon’ble Jaipur
Tribunal in the case of Shri Anuj Kr. Varshney Vs. ITO &Ors.
Revenue Authorities ITA 187/JP/2012 dated 22.10.14 sustained the addition to the extent of 15% after elaborate discussion and extensive findings instead of 25%. It is a settled law that Income
Tax Authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in documents. It is the duty of the authority to go behind the smoke- screen and discover the true state of affairs. The authority is not to be satisfied with the form but with the substance of the transactions. Though the transactions in the present case were initially settled through banking channel but these were ultimately settled in cash. Merely because a paper trail had been created, that would not by itself make the transaction genuine. It was held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mittal Belting and Machinery Stores Vs. CIT (253 ITR 341) that if on the examination of the evidence, it is found that there was no genuine transaction between the parties, a pure paper transaction could not have entitled the assessee to claim benefit under the law.
Similarly, the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji
Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (49 ITD 177) that issue of bills by the alleged suppliers was not a conclusive proof. On the same facts, in the case of ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 126), the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal upheld 10% of the purchase price as DCIT Vs. S.S. Pulses

[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 6 of 16

inflated amount where suppliers were found to be nonexistent and did not respond to the notices issued by the Department. There are number of decisions by the various courts, wherein 25% to 100%
disallowances of bogus purchases, have been upheld. Some of these are mentioned below: 5.3 100% disallowance of bogus / unverifiable purchases was upheld, in following cases:-
1. CIT Vs. La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (Del)
2. Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (1) Khandelwal
Ltd. Vs. ITO 707 / 1075 / 1262 / 1263 / JD (2002) ITAT (Ahd).
In the case of Swetambar Steels Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble ITAT,
Ahmedabad had confirmed the is allowance of the bogus purchase in entirety stating that the purchases shown from the respective parties were found ingenuine. It was not a matter to be looked into whether the assessee had made purchases from different parties other than the alleged ones. It was also worth mentioning that the appeal against the decision of Hon’ble ITAT was not admitted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the assessee had also lost before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So, the decision over the issue had become final. There were judicial decisions wherein the whole amount of bogus purchases was disallowed and the said orders were also confirmed by the High Courts. It was held that after invocation of provisions of section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case was Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) wherein the DCIT Vs. S.S. Pulses

[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 7 of 16

entire amount of bogus purchases, from 5 parties, was disallowed and same was also upheld. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal as confirmed by High Court of Allahabad is reproduced, here as under: “Once it is found that the purchases were bogus, addition has to be made to the extent of the purchases found to be fictitious. The consideration that the gross profit disclosed by the assessee compares favorably as compared to the earlier years is wholly irrelevant. To neutralize the effect of inflation in purchases, the only course open to the Income-tax Officer is to add back that amount to the income irrespective of the fact whether the rate of gross profit goes up and whether the resultant gross profit is higher than the gross profit normally shown in the earlier years.”
5.4 25% disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases has been upheld in following cases:-
1. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries Vs. CIT (2008) 316 ITR 274
(Gujarat HC)
2. Vijay Proteins Ltd Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahmedabad)
3. M/s. Nand Kishore MeghrajJewellers, Jaipur Co. No.
105/JP/09 arising out of ITA No. 433/JP/2009 by ITAT
Jaipur
4. M/s. Trident Jewellers ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 552/JP/2013. Disallowance @ 25% out of Bogus purchases, was held as a reasonable in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (supra) in view of the fact that the savings occurred to the suppliers on account of sales
[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 8 of 16

tax, duties and Income-tax having MMR of 30%. By buying the goods from grey market at lower rates and booking the purchases at normal rate, the assessee got the benefit of this proportion. In view of this, the disallowance @ 25% was held to be fully justified.
Further in the case of M/s. Trident Jewellers Vs. ITO, ITA No.
552/JP/2013, on account of bogus purchases, an addition of 25%
of such purchases was confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur
Bench.
5.5 15% disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases has been upheld in following cases :- Shri Anuj Kr. VarshneyVs. ITO &Ors.
Revenue Authorities ITA 187/JP/2012 dated 22/10/14. 1. 2. ITO
Vs. Bhansali Trading Corporation ITA No. 253/JP/2012. 5.6 10% disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases has been upheld in following cases: (i) Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT
(45 DTR 433) (Delhi ITAT). (ii) ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 1126)
(Ahmedabad ITAT).
5.7
In view of the foregoing discussion, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases/ accommodation entry must be based on the facts of case. The same cannot be generalized in every case. The decisions rendered in the cases of Sanjay Oil Cake
[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 9 of 16

cheques issued to various parties were deposited in one of the accounts, which were found to be owned by the assessee himself but there are no such circumstances in the present case. Moreover, the question whether entire purchases should be disallowed or addition should be restricted to the profits embodied on sale proceeds was answered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. President Industries (258 ITR 654) and Hon’ble Madhya
Therefore, such purchases claimed by the assessee, could not be treated as genuine. In view of facts and circumstances in the present case, I hold that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of purchases made from Impex Gems & M/s. Jewel
Diam. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances in the appellant’s case, I believe the AO’s decision to reject the books of account and making addition is justified.
[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 10 of 16

Page 11 of 16

to tax only 25% of the bogus claims? This is further supported by the fact that in this case also, the AO has categorically and conclusively held that the parties from whom the purchases are shown to be made are bogus purchases as the concerns are providing bogus bills and this finding of the AO has been further strengthened by the findings of the higher appellate authority which is never controverted by Hon'ble ITAT?
6.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in overlooking the fact that addition made by AO based on details of scam unearthed by Sales Tax Department wherein it was established that the assessee had taken bills from bogus parties without actually making purchases from them?
6.4 whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in ignoring that the purchases from bogus parties are debited in P & L
Account for which the assessee had not submitted any evidences, and the same was not allowable?
6.5 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A) who had limited and disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the total alleged purchase without verification and confirmation of quantitative data of material sourced and its subsequent movement during the year?" 3. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 12 of 16

The Assessee undertakes civil contract works awarded mostly by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
Return of income was fled for the assessment year 2009-
10, declaring a total income of Rs. 92,36,071/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, at a total income of Rs. 93,72,290/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department through DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee had made purchases of Rs.
4,50,08,383/- , which seemed to be accommodation entries. An order under section 143(3) r/w section 147 was passed on 26th March, 2014, making an entire addition of Rs. 4,50,08,383/- as bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, thereby determining the assessee's income at Rs.
5,43,80,670/-
4. An appeal was preferred before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), who allowed the appeal partly vide its order dated 19th May, 2015. The Appellate Authority held that payments made by the assessee were through banking channels and that there was no evidence to prove that the cash had flowed back to the appellant. Purchase invoices and ledger statements also appear to have been produced before the Appellate Authority. It was held that what was taxable under the Income-tax Act, was only the real income. Even when the transaction was not verifiable only the income component, could be taxed and not the DCIT Vs. S.S. Pulses

[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 13 of 16

entire transaction amount. It was also held that it was undisputed that the sale proceeds of the goods had been duly accounted for in the books and offered to tax, hence, the entire purchase amount could not have been added in the present case and that with a view to plug any revenue leakage in the aforementioned circumstances, disallowance of @12.5% was held to be reasonable to safeguard the interest of revenue. It, therefore, confirmed the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged purchases of Rs.
4,50,08,383/- i.e. Rs. 56,26,047/-, therefore, relief was granted to the appellant to the extent of Rs. 4,50,08,383/-
- Rs. 56,26,047/- = Rs. 3,93,82,336/-.
[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 14 of 16

profit element embedded therein, be treated as income of the assessee.
5. We have gone through the well reasoned order of the Tribunal, which has taken into account all relevant facts before passing the order impugned. In our opinion, the order does not warrant any interference. No substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.” (emphasis supplied)
5.11 In view of the matter, considering the factual matrix of the case,
I am of the opinion that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani [2022] 145
taxmann.com 230 (Bombay) (supra), apart from the decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (supra), is squarely applicable mutatis mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the non genuine/suspicious/bogus purchases instead of disallowing 100%
of the purchases of Rs 2,63,24,917/- in the assessment order. Thus, the grounds No.4 to 6 raised by the assessee on this issue is treated as partly allowed. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.”

[A.Y 2012-13]

Page 15 of 16

purchases as bogus and following the judicial precedence, has restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by taking a percentage of profit embedded in the bogus purchase. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2384/DEL/2024 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 04.11.2025. [SATBEER SINGH GODARA]

[NAVEEN CHANDRA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 09th December, 2025. VL/