JAI SAI TRADERS,THANE vs. ITO WD 2(2), KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. It restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering purchases from the grey market.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of 25% of alleged bogus purchases. The AO had initially disallowed a larger sum based on information from the Sales-tax department, which was reduced by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the extent of disallowance for alleged bogus purchases when sales are not disputed. The Tribunal also considered the implication of purchases made through the grey market.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya
O R D E R This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 15- 12-2016 and pertains to AY 2009-10.
The solitary issue pertains to disallowance of 25% bogus purchases amounting to Rs.5,57,725. Pursuant to information received from Sales-tax department that assessee had received bogus purchase entries, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.22,30,899. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25%. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before ITAT.
Upon careful consideration, 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. This proposition is supported from honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises. However the facts of the present case indicate that assessee has made purchase from the grey market. Making purchase through the grey market gives the 2 M/s Jai Sai Traders asseessee savings on account of non payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In similar situation on the facts and circumstances of the case a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchase has been considered to meet the end of justice in a number of cases at the Mumbai tribunal. Accordingly I hold that the disallowance in this case should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Learned counsel of the assessee has fairly agreed to this proposition.
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. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026