Embedded profit taxation in bogus purchase cases upheld where sales remain accepted; a non-aggrieved party cannot pursue appeal.

Where alleged bogus purchases arise from accommodation entries but corresponding sales and trading details remain accepted, only the embedded profit element, rather than full purchase disallowance, may be taxed. The article notes that a 6% addition was upheld as a fact-based, reasoned estimate consistent with comparable cases, without a substantial question of law. It also states that a party cannot maintain a further appeal against an order operating in its favour because it is not an aggrieved party. Accordingly, the Revenue's challenge to the estimated addition failed, and its connected appeal was declined for lack of grievance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether addition on alleged bogus purchases could be restricted to 6% of the impugned purchases instead of sustaining 100% disallowance under the reopening assessment; (ii) Whether the Revenue could maintain a further appeal against the Tribunal's order in the connected matter where the Tribunal had dismissed the assessee's appeal and thereby granted relief in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (i): Whether addition on alleged bogus purchases could be restricted to 6% of the impugned purchases instead of sustaining 100% disallowance under the reopening assessment.

Analysis: The dispute arose from purchases treated as non-genuine on the basis of investigation material relating to accommodation entries. The sales were not disputed, and the quantitative and qualitative details were also not disbelieved. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that, where actual sales stand accepted, complete disallowance of purchases is not justified and only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax. In adopting 6%, the Tribunal followed the consistent approach applied in similar cases involving the same entry-provider pattern and the same line of trade, which had already received approval in earlier decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. The estimation was thus treated as a factual and reasoned exercise based on the material on record, and not as giving rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: Restriction of the addition to 6% of the impugned purchases was upheld; the issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could maintain a further appeal against the Tribunal's order in the connected matter where the Tribunal had dismissed the assessee's appeal and thereby granted relief in favour of the Revenue.

Analysis: In the connected appeal, the Tribunal had rejected the assessee's challenge, resulting in an order favourable to the Revenue. Since the Revenue was not adversely affected by that order, the requirement of being an aggrieved party was absent. On that basis, the proposed question of law was not taken up for answer.

Conclusion: The Revenue was not entitled to pursue the connected appeal against an order operating in its favour; the issue was decided against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's estimation of disallowance failed, the earlier line of decisions on taxing only the embedded profit element in such bogus purchase cases was followed, and the connected appeal by the Revenue was declined for want of grievance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged bogus purchases are linked to accommodation entries but the corresponding sales and trading details are not rejected, a reasonable estimate of the profit element rather than 100% disallowance is sustainable, and no further appeal lies at the instance of a party not aggrieved by the order under challenge.

---