← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT

citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.

418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT

216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar

54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2694/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

CITA erred in confirming the disallowance aggregating to sum of Rs. 90,81,012/- made by the AO being alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 63,17,640 from M/s Aniket Enterprises and Rs.27,63,372/- from M/s Akash International. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case ... case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. in SLP 759 of 2017, dated 16/01/2017 affirmed the findings of the Ld. AO in confirming alleged bogus purchases on the ground that when notices u/s 133(6) were issued to those parties, all notices were returned back with remark “not known”. Further, when

Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2693/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

CITA erred in confirming the disallowance aggregating to sum of Rs. 90,81,012/- made by the AO being alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 63,17,640 from M/s Aniket Enterprises and Rs.27,63,372/- from M/s Akash International. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case ... case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. in SLP 759 of 2017, dated 16/01/2017 affirmed the findings of the Ld. AO in confirming alleged bogus purchases on the ground that when notices u/s 133(6) were issued to those parties, all notices were returned back with remark “not known”. Further, when

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2689/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

CITA erred in confirming the disallowance aggregating to sum of Rs. 90,81,012/- made by the AO being alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 63,17,640 from M/s Aniket Enterprises and Rs.27,63,372/- from M/s Akash International. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case ... case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. in SLP 759 of 2017, dated 16/01/2017 affirmed the findings of the Ld. AO in confirming alleged bogus purchases on the ground that when notices u/s 133(6) were issued to those parties, all notices were returned back with remark “not known”. Further, when

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2688/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

CITA erred in confirming the disallowance aggregating to sum of Rs. 90,81,012/- made by the AO being alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 63,17,640 from M/s Aniket Enterprises and Rs.27,63,372/- from M/s Akash International. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case ... case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. in SLP 759 of 2017, dated 16/01/2017 affirmed the findings of the Ld. AO in confirming alleged bogus purchases on the ground that when notices u/s 133(6) were issued to those parties, all notices were returned back with remark “not known”. Further, when

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2687/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

CITA erred in confirming the disallowance aggregating to sum of Rs. 90,81,012/- made by the AO being alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 63,17,640 from M/s Aniket Enterprises and Rs.27,63,372/- from M/s Akash International. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case ... case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. in SLP 759 of 2017, dated 16/01/2017 affirmed the findings of the Ld. AO in confirming alleged bogus purchases on the ground that when notices u/s 133(6) were issued to those parties, all notices were returned back with remark “not known”. Further, when

ACIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amba Enterprised Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1347/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav - Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

appeal:- “1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowance of bogus purchase of Rs.1,36,94,518/- to 1.5% without any basis when he himself has accepted that purchases are not genuine and he should have ... confirmed full addition on account of bogus purchases." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made on account of purchases of Rs.1,36,94,518/- to 1.5% without appreciating the fact that the assessee

Shri. Nandkishore Kishanrao Dilerao, Nanded vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Nanded

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1851/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1851/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The issue of bogus purchases has recently come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. Vide its judgment dated ... No.1004 of 2016 and others, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held that no ad hoc addition at the rate of 10% of bogus purchases is warranted. Rather the addition should be made to the extent of difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and gross profit

Prabhat Rajmal Nibjiya, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1342/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Officer. The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had made purchase transactions from certain parties who have been identified as Hawala dealers providing bogus purchase bills by the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra. 3 A.Y.2011-12 Such purchases totalled to Rs 9,24,803.0n being asked to explain the same ... assessee are not genuine, but, bogus accommodation bills and that he is involved in hawala transaction. Therefore, he added the entire amount of bogus purchases so made of Rs 9,24,803/-to the assessee's total income. 4. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) confirmed the addition of Rs.9

Ratan Lal Jagat Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1490/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddyi.T.A. No.1490/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ratan Lal Jagat Singh.......................…….………………….………………………………..………Appellant [Pan : Aadfr 2770 H] Ito, Ward-43(3), Kolkata………….….……………………………………………….…………………...Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

circumstances of the case, perusing the papers on record and orders of the authorities below, I hold as follows. 5. On the issue of bogus purchases, the facts are that, the assessee had disclosed purchases of goods worth Rs.80,62,152/- from M/s Vimal Export International. The Assessing Officer ... assessee company. The difference amount of Rs.13,57,946/- which would not be explained by the assessee was added by the Assessing Officer as bogus purchases. The explanation of the assessee that certain wrong entries were passed by M/s Vimal Export International and that purchases were only Rs.80

DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the Revenue is rendered infructuous and is dismissed

ITA 454/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

both the grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) directing the AO to make the disallowance @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases as against the 100% disallowance made by the AO. 3. The Ld. A.R., at the outset, submitted that the cross appeal of the assessee ... Nos.7310 to 7313/Mum/2017 vide order dated 15.10.2018 in A.Y. 2009-10 & others directing the AO to assess the profit margin on the bogus purchases @ 3%. The Ld. A.R., therefore prayed that in view of the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal the appeal filed by the Revenue

Shri Ajit Rikhabchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3956/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodshri Ajit Rikhabchand Jain Dy. Commissioner Of 104 New Hormuzd Apartments Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4) Behind Kemps Hotel Room No. 902, Old Cgo Building Vs. 131 August Kranti Marg M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai 400 036 Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147

from certain bogus parties. In the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O made an addition of Rs.48,363/- i.e @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.3,86,904/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) not finding favour with ... lower authorities @ 12.5% of the value of the purchases under consideration. We though are not oblivious of the fact that in respect of bogus purchases made in normal business the courts had consistently estimated the profit margin in making of such purchases from the open/grey market @ 12.5% of the value

Sehrullah Karamdar Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3941/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood & Assessment Year-2009-10 Sehrullah Karamdar Khan, Ito-26(3)(2) Pro. M/S Samir Steel Traders, Mumbai बनाम/ B/307, Dwarka Shopping Centre, Vs. Near City Hospital, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai-400070 Pan No.Ahmpk0007C ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A)-38, Mumbai, dated 30/06/2017 has erred in sustaining 12.5 percent disallowance on account of bogus purchases. 2. The Assessing Officer in this case has made 12.5% addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.32,31,272/-. 3. Upon assessee ... 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. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from honourable jurisdictional High Court decision

Shree Govind Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

assessee in all these appeals challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance at 50% of the bogus purchases by estimating the profit element in such purchases. 3. First I take up the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 and briefly stated the facts ... considering various judicial pronouncements and further taking note of the Gross Profit shown by the assessee restricted the addition/disallowance to 50% of the bogus purchases. 4. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submits that the profit element M/s. Shree Govind

Shree Govind Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.Kroad, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

assessee in all these appeals challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance at 50% of the bogus purchases by estimating the profit element in such purchases. 3. First I take up the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 and briefly stated the facts ... considering various judicial pronouncements and further taking note of the Gross Profit shown by the assessee restricted the addition/disallowance to 50% of the bogus purchases. 4. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submits that the profit element M/s. Shree Govind

Shree Govind Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3134/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

assessee in all these appeals challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance at 50% of the bogus purchases by estimating the profit element in such purchases. 3. First I take up the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 and briefly stated the facts ... considering various judicial pronouncements and further taking note of the Gross Profit shown by the assessee restricted the addition/disallowance to 50% of the bogus purchases. 4. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submits that the profit element M/s. Shree Govind

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Traders & Computechnics, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2101/Mum/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) बनधम/ Acit 27(3), Mumbai M/S. Tirupati Traders & 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Computechnics, Vs. 22A, Sindh Society, Opp. Vashi Railway Station Shitala Nursing Home, Complex, Vashi, Navi Chembur, (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400071. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabft0586F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy/ Ms. Neelima Nadkarni (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Id Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition On Account Of Bogus Purchase To Rs.16,19,724/-(Being 12.5% Of The Said Bogus Purchase To Rs. 1,29,57,789/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.1,21,86,039/-( Being Peak Of Total Bogus Purchases Of Rs, 1,29,57,789/- Made In The Assessment U/S 69C Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Nk Proteins Ltd. V/S Dt [292 Ctr (Guj) 354(2016), Upholding The Decision Of Hon'Ble Gujrat High Court

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy/ Ms

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchase to Rs.16,19,724/-(being 12.5% of the said bogus purchase to Rs. 1,29,57,789/- as against the addition of Rs.1,21,86,039/-( being ... peak of total bogus purchases of Rs, 1,29,57,789/- made in the assessment u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1509/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ambalal Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.3,41,855/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) of the Act at Rs.1 ... Synthetics Ltd. Rs.1,36,22,060/-. Thereafter, the AO received information from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchases of hawala transactions from five parties the details whereof are given on page No.2 of the assessment order. The AO accordingly reopened the assessment

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aarti Jewellers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 1312/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Cit, Cc-8(4), M/S Aarti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, 3Rd Floor, Hormuz Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 32, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Near Breach Candy, Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aaaca4468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Anadi Varma (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma (CIT DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 260ASection 69C

decision of ITAT rendered in the assessee’s own case ITA No. 5372/MUM/2017 restricted the addition to 5% of the total amount of bogus purchases shown by the assessee. Against the said findings of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The revenue ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified to restrict disallowance on account of bogus purchases to 5% of the total amount of bogus purchases amounting Rs. 29,28,24,729/- by relying of the decision of Hon. ITAT

ACIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Middle Earth Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross

ITA 5753/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Year:-2011-12 Acit-13(3)(2), M/S Middle Earth Room No.229, 02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Enterprises, Aayakar Bhavan, 19/40, C-2, Seksaria Vs. M. K. Road, Industrial Estate, Off Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaqfm8445I

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Nikunj Eximp 'Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax .-ppeal No. g604 of 2010) held that "the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement i.e. reconciliation statement, but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that the Books ... Middle Earth Enterprises the impugned parties, based on which the net profit goes up to 11%. In view of the above, 10% of the bogus purchases made by the id Assessing Officer amounting to Rs 26,53,163/- is confirmed. Thus, the appellant is entitled to relief

Elenjickamalil V. Thomas, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2647/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus and accommodation entries. No cogent incriminating material has been brought on record by the authorities below to prove that assessee has made bogus purchases except inspector report which is not sufficient to fasten the liability to tax on the assessee. The inspector report has merely submitted that