ASHWIN MOOLCHAND MADHANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 32 (1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6784/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6255 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P BHOOPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: JIGNESH SAVLA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 6784 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 1 1 ) I.T.A. NO. 6785/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12) SHRI ASHWIN MOOLCHAND MADHANI C/202, VAIBHAV, JAMLI GALLI (FAC TORY LANE), BORIVALI - W MUMBAI - 400 092 PAN : AAPPM2256H V S . ITO - 32(1)(2) C - 11, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA MUMBAI - 400 051. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI JIGNESH SAVLA DEPARTMENT BY SHR I P. BHOOPATHI DATE OF H EARING 11.12 . 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4.2. 2020 O R D E R TH E S E ARE APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS AG G RIEVED THAT THE LEARNED CIT - A HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING 12.5% DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIER. I NFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS THAT IN BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY REOPENED. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAS MADE 12.5% A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,42,142/ - FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND RS. 1,44,620/ - FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. HE DID NOT EVEN ISSUE NOTICES TO THE ALLEGED BOGUS SUPPLIERS. 3. U PON ASSESSEE S APPEAL S ID CIT - A CONFIRMED THE SAME . 4. AGAINST ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL S BEFORE THE ITAT. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. U PON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND SHRI ASHWIN MOOLCHAND MADHANI 2 THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE PURCHASE. ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN DUE TO THE INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SUPPLIERS. 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. THE RATIONALE BEING NO SALES IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT ACTUAL PURCHASES. THIS PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED FROM HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECI SION IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ E XIMP E NTERPRISES (IN WRIT PETITION NO 2860, ORDER DT . 18.6.2014). IN THIS CASE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD HUNDRED PERCENT ALLOWANCE FOR THE PURCHASES SAID TO BE BOGUS WHEN SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED. HOWEVER IN THAT CASE AL L THE SUPPLIES WERE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACTS OF THE CASE INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASE FROM THE GREY MARKET. MAKING PURCHASES THROUGH THE GREY MARKET GIVES THE ASSESSEE SAVINGS ON ACCOUNT OF NON - PAYMENT OF TAX AND OTHE RS 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 END OF JUSTICE. HOWEVER IN THIS REGARD LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED THAT WHEN ONLY THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE BOGUS PURCHASE TRANSACTION IS TO BE TAXED THE GROSS PROFIT ALREADY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OFFERED TO TAX SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE STANDARD 12.5% BEING DIRECTED TO BE DISALLOWED ON ACCO UNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE. 5. UP ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, AS OTHERWISE IT WILL BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY I MODIFY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT - A AND DIRECT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS CASE BE RESTRICTED TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES AS REDUCED BY THE GROSS PROFIT RATE ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT IF THE GROSS PROFIT ALREADY DECLARED IS MORE THAN 12.5 % NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THIS PROPOSITION. SHRI ASHWIN MOOLCHAND MADHANI 3 6. IN THE RESULT TH E S E APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4 . 2 . 20 20 . SD/ - (SH A MIM YA HYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 4 / 2 / 20 20 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD F ILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI