2018 (3) TMI 576 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of 100% of bogus purchase - Held 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 (2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Facts of the present case indicate that assessee has made purchase from the grey market. Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee saving on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In such situation, in my 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 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT)

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment
2. Confirmation of disallowance of 100% of bogus purchases

Validity of Reopening Assessment:
The case involved appeals by the assessee against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department indicating that the assessee had made purchases from parties involved in issuing bogus bills without delivering goods. The parties admitted to this practice during spot verifications. The Assessing Officer obtained relevant details and concluded that the assessee had suppressed taxable income by debiting purchases from these parties. Notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were issued for both years, and the assessee did not object to the reassessment during the proceedings. The Assessing Officer added the hawala purchases to the income of the assessee based on the available facts and records.

Confirmation of Disallowance of 100% of Bogus Purchases:
The second issue revolved around the confirmation of the disallowance of 100% of bogus purchases amounting to specific figures for each assessment year. The assessee failed to produce satisfactory documentary evidence, such as transport receipts, to substantiate the movement of goods from suppliers to the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire alleged purchases for both years and added them to the assessee's income. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the reopening and the addition. The Commissioner confirmed the actions of the Assessing Officer. However, the ITAT modified the order, considering that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be justified. The ITAT referred to relevant case laws and directed a 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases, citing the assessee's involvement in purchasing from the grey market to save on taxes at the expense of the exchequer. The appeals by the assessee were partly allowed, limiting the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.

In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai partially allowed the appeals by the assessee, limiting the disallowance of bogus purchases to 12.5% based on the involvement in purchasing from the grey market. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating purchases and the consequences of suppressing taxable income.