Bogus purchases under section 69C: Only profit element taxable, not entire purchase value disallowed

The ITAT Ahmedabad addressed additions under section 69C for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee provided documentary evidence including VAT invoices, bank statements, and audited accounts, with sales remaining undisputed by the AO. While concerns existed regarding supplier genuineness and accommodation entry providers, the tribunal applied established legal principle that entire bogus purchase value should not be disallowed. Instead, only the profit element representing unexplained expenditure should be taxed to prevent revenue leakage. The tribunal restricted disallowance to 8% of the disputed purchases, finding this approach fair and reasonable given the available evidence and legal precedents governing bogus purchase cases.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the addition of Rs. 15,28,644/- under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged bogus purchases, was justified.Whether the entire value of alleged bogus purchases can be disallowed or only the profit element embedded therein is taxable.Whether delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified and if the delay should be condoned.Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has jurisdiction under amended section 251 of the Act to set aside the assessment and refer the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The addition of Rs. 15,28,644/- under section 69C was not fully justified as the assessee furnished documentary evidence including VAT invoices, bank statements, and audited books of accounts substantiating the genuineness of purchases.It is a well-settled principle that in cases involving suspected bogus purchases, the entire purchase value should not be disallowed; instead, only the profit element embedded in such purchases is liable to be brought to tax to prevent leakage of revenue.The delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal, implying that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for delay without proper inquiry.In the interest of justice and considering the peculiar facts, the disallowance was restricted to 8% of the impugned purchase amount rather than the entire amount.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory provisions of section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with unexplained investments and purchases, and relied on precedents from the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts that consistently hold that only the profit element embedded in suspected bogus purchases should be disallowed.The Tribunal referred to multiple authoritative decisions affirming the principle that the entire value of alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed without independent inquiry, and a reasonable percentage representing profit margin should be estimated for disallowance.The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the sales and accepted payments through banking channels, supported by audited accounts and VAT compliance, thus weakening the basis for full disallowance.The Tribunal exercised discretion to condone delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of adjudication on merits rather than dismissal on procedural grounds.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the decision follows established legal principles and applies them to the facts of the case.

---