Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Gujarat HC Upholds 5% Bogus Purchase Addition for Lack of Independent Enquiry

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 7793
Case Name
PCIT 1 Vs Jigisha Satishkumar Mehta (Gujarat High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

PCIT 1 Vs Jigisha Satishkumar Mehta (Gujarat High Court)

Revenue Appeal Dismissed as AO Failed to Independently Verify Alleged Bogus Purchases; Entire Bogus Purchase Addition Rejected Because AO Relied Only on Sales Tax Information; Gujarat High Court Distinguishes N.K. Industries, Upholds Estimated Bogus Purchase Addition; No Substantial Question of Law in 5% Bogus Purchase Addition; 5% Addition Sustained as Documentary Evidence Supported Purchases Despite Bogus Billing Allegation; Gujarat High Court Refuses Full Addition Where Bogus Purchases Were Not Independently Established; Concurrent Findings on Bogus Purchase Estimation Upheld Due to Insufficient Evidence.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s decision restricting the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 5% of such purchases, contending that the Tribunal had overlooked the High Court’s decision in N.K. Industries Ltd., where the entire bogus purchases had been added. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal’s order.

The assessee, an individual carrying on business as a dealer in chemicals through a proprietary concern, filed the return of income declaring a total income of ₹10,80,530. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 based on information received from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority, alleging that the assessee had made bogus purchases amounting to ₹15,38,784 from a hawala dealer, Nina Enterprise. The Assessing Officer issued notices under Sections 148 and 142(1). As the assessee neither attended the assessment proceedings nor filed submissions despite opportunities, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 and made an addition of ₹15,38,784 under Section 68, relying solely on the information received from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,835

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.