ITAT imposes 6% lump sum disallowance on bogus purchases lacking supplier confirmations and proper assessment notices

The ITAT PUNE ruled on bogus purchases where the assessee failed to provide supplier confirmations and assessment notices could not be served. The tribunal determined that once bogus purchases attain finality, they cannot be treated equally with verified purchases. Based on case law precedents showing disallowance margins of 5-12% for such transactions, the tribunal imposed a uniform 6% lump sum disallowance across three assessment years. The decision was made considering the peculiar facts of the case, with the tribunal specifically noting this should not be treated as precedent for future cases.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves multiple issues including the applicability of a specific court decision, the treatment of bogus purchases in trading business, and the computation of disallowances involving the GP component.

Applicability of Court Decision:
The judgment pertains to three Revenue appeals against orders passed under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal deliberated on the applicability of the hon'ble apex court's decision in a specific case, N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT, as per remand directions. The Tribunal concluded that the decision was not applicable to the current case, leading to a fresh hearing of the appeals.

Treatment of Bogus Purchases:
The Tribunal discussed the treatment of bogus purchases in the trading business context. Referring to a recent court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that purchases cannot be rejected without affecting sales in the case of a trader. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining consistency between purchases and sales, leading to a specific percentage disallowance for the bogus purchases in question.

Computation of Disallowances Involving GP Component:
The Tribunal further analyzed the computation of disallowances related to the GP component. It considered the total purchases, gross sales, and the specific bogus purchases made by the assessee. Due to the lack of supplier confirmations and unsuccessful service of notices, the Tribunal decided on a lump sum disallowance of 6% across the three assessment years to ensure justice. This decision was made with the understanding that such disallowances should not set a precedent for future cases.

Separate Judgment by Judges:
The judgment was delivered by SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, and DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. The appeals were partly allowed based on the issues discussed and the conclusions reached. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fresh hearing based on the specific circumstances and legal considerations presented in the case files.

---