ITAT Mumbai Limits Bogus Purchase Addition To 5% When Sales Stand Accepted
Background of the Dispute
The matter in Pankaj Bhanwarlal Dhaddha Vs ITO came up before the ITAT Mumbai concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee, an individual engaged in trading of metal and nickel alloys under the proprietorship concern “Kalpataru Nickel Alloys”, faced an addition on account of alleged bogus purchases based on information from the Sales Tax Department relating to accommodation entries.
The central controversy revolved around:
- Reopening of assessment under
Section 147purely on third-party information, - Estimation of alleged bogus purchases, and
- The extent to which such purchases could be disallowed when:
- sales were fully accepted, and
- books of account were not rejected.
The ITAT ultimately restricted the disallowance to 5% of the disputed purchases, aligning its view with the decision rendered in the assessee’s own case for the subsequent year AY 2011-12.
Grounds Raised Before the CIT(A) and ITAT
Key Grounds of Appeal
The assessee challenged the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 15.09.2025 on multiple grounds, mainly:
Validity of Reopening under
Section 147- Assessee argued that the reopening was triggered solely on the basis of third-party information (from the Sales Tax Department) without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Addition on Alleged Bogus Purchases
- The assessee disputed the addition of
₹ 29,11,627/-as bogus purchases. - It was contended that purchases were supported by:
- cheque payments,
- stock registers/records, and
- corresponding sales.
- The assessee disputed the addition of
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
- The assessee argued that no opportunity was granted to cross-examine the alleged entry providers, whose statements formed the basis of the adverse inference.
Disallowance under
Section 80C- The assessee objected to the denial of deduction under
Section 80Cof₹ 87,647/-relating to LIC premium.
- The assessee objected to the denial of deduction under
Non-following of Precedent in Assessee’s Own Case
- The assessee pointed out that in its own case for
AY 2011-12inITA No. 2458/M/2023dated 26.10.2023, the ITAT had restricted similar alleged bogus purchase disallowance to 5% of the disputed purchases. - It was contended that the
CIT(A)erred in not following this binding precedent.
- The assessee pointed out that in its own case for
Residual Ground
- The assessee reserved the right to modify, add or delete grounds.
Facts and Assessment Proceedings
Information From Sales Tax Department
The case was reopened based on information received from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee allegedly obtained accommodation purchase bills from certain entities classified as suspicious/entry providers.
- According to the information, the assessee had made purchases of around Rs. 2.32 crore from such parties.
- These parties were listed by the Sales Tax Department as hawala / accommodation entry providers, allegedly issuing invoices without actual delivery of goods.
Reopening and Addition by AO
Relying on this external information: