Bogus purchase additions: unproved purchases attract only the profit element when corresponding sales are accepted.

In alleged bogus purchase cases, the assessee must first prove the genuineness of the purchases; where supplier notices remain unserved, the parties are not produced, and no delivery, transport, stock-movement, or supporting records are filed, the primary onus is not discharged and the cross-examination objection does not assist the assessee. Where corresponding sales are accepted, however, only the profit element embedded in the unproved purchases is brought to tax, not the entire purchase amount. The addition is therefore limited to an estimated profit, subject to verification and credit for gross profit already disclosed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of the alleged purchases and was entitled to relief on the ground of non-provision of cross-examination, and (ii) whether the addition on account of bogus purchases was to be made in full or only to the extent of the profit element embedded in such purchases.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of the alleged purchases and was entitled to relief on the ground of non-provision of cross-examination.

Analysis: The notices issued to the alleged suppliers were returned unserved, the assessee failed to furnish updated addresses or produce the parties, and no reliable evidence of delivery of goods, transport, stock movement, or supporting records was produced. In these circumstances, the assessee did not discharge the primary onus of proving genuineness of the purchases. As the parties themselves were not available and were not produced, the grievance regarding cross-examination did not advance the assessee's case.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee; the purchases were rightly treated as unsubstantiated/bogus.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases was to be made in full or only to the extent of the profit element embedded in such purchases.

Analysis: Although the purchases were not proved genuine, the sales were accepted and the settled approach in such cases is to tax only the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases rather than the entire purchase amount. The matter was therefore taken to an estimation of profit, with credit to be given for the gross profit already offered by the assessee on the relevant purchases upon verification.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to the profit element, and the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute it after allowing credit for the gross profit already declared.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed only in part, with the full addition deleted and substituted by an estimated profit addition on the disputed purchases.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of unproved or bogus purchases where corresponding sales are accepted, the entire purchase amount is not to be disallowed as income; only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax, subject to verification of any gross profit already disclosed.

---