Disallowance of 20% on account of bogus purchases


Quick Summary
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai has dismissed an appeal by the revenue concerning a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was based on a 20% disallowance of purchases deemed 'bogus' by the Assessing Officer due to the non-production of suppliers. However, the ITAT found that purchase vouchers were provided and payments were made through banking channels, and therefore, the penalty was not justified.

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This appeal by the revenue is against order of learned CIT(A)-40, Mumbai dated 23/10/2019.

Citation :
ITA No.338/Mum/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
&
SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.338/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year : 2010-11 )

ACIT-26(1) Room No.623, 6th Floor Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051

PAN/GIR No. AABPG6912E

(Appellant)

vs

Shri Ghanshyam T. Gursahani C-602, Sagar Swapna Nagar Mulund (W) Mumbai – 400 080

(Respondent)

Revenue by
Shri T.S. Khalsa
Assessee by
None
Date of Hearing
29/07/2021
Date of Pronouncement
02/08/2021

O R D E R

This appeal by the revenue is against order of learned CIT(A)-40, Mumbai dated 23/10/2019 wherein following penalty levied under 271(1)(c).

2.The brief facts of the case leading to the levy of penalty are that the Assessing Officer in this case made disallowance of 20% on account of bogus purchases. However, drawing adverse inference for the nonproduction of the suppliers, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the bogus purchases. However, the Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also levied.

3.We have heard Ld DR and perused the records. As clear from the facts recorded above, the disallowance has been made on an estimated basis on account of the nonproduction of suppliers before the Assessing Officer. The purchase vouchers were duly produced and the payments were through banking channel. In these backgrounds, in our considered opinion, assessee cannot be visited with the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c). As a matter of fact on many occasions on similar circumstances in quantum proceedings the disallowance itself has been deleted.

4. In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 02/08/2021 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement.

FAQ :

The case concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) following a 20% disallowance of purchases deemed 'bogus' by the Assessing Officer.

The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the purchases because the assessee did not produce the suppliers before him.

The assessee provided the purchase vouchers and demonstrated that payments were made through banking channels.

The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and disallowed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), finding it unjustified.

The penalty was deemed unjustified because the disallowance was estimated, purchase vouchers were available, payments were made via banking channels, and the suppliers were not produced.

 

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
19 August 2026
PAID ARTCILE ASSISTANT

My Legal Tax Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Noida

CA Inter

View Details
Company
14 August 2026
Article Assistant CA Articleship

Eshwar & Co Chartered Accountants - Nungambakkam

Chennai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 14 August 2026
Article Assistant

N J Suresh & Associates

Bengaluru

CA Inter

View Details
Company
08 August 2026
International Corporate Tax Advisory

Shulke

Bengaluru

CA

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 17 August 2026
CA Article Trainee

ASC Group

Noida

CA Inter

View Details
Company
14 August 2026
Semi Qualified

Goyanka & Associates

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
21 August 2026
Finance Manager

Resollect Technologies Pvt Ltd

Mumbai

CA

View Details
Company
13 August 2026
Chartered Accountant (FP&A)

Client of Trellis Consulting

Gurgaon

CA

View Details