ITAT Deletes Bogus Purchase Additions Where Assets Existed & Sales Not Disputed

Tribunal Holds No Addition Sustainable Without Independent Inquiry; Capital Purchases Cannot Be Treated as Bogus Merely on Investigation Wing Inputs

ITAT held that bogus purchase additions cannot be sustained without independent inquiry where assets exist and sales are not disputed

Meetu Kumari | Apr 14, 2026 |

ITAT Deletes Bogus Purchase Additions Where Assets Existed & Sales Not Disputed

ITAT Deletes Bogus Purchase Additions Where Assets Existed & Sales Not Disputed

The assessee, Omnitel Technologies Pvt. Ltd., engaged in telecom services for Government projects, filed returns for AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17. The assessments were reopened based on information from the Investigation Wing alleging that certain suppliers were providing accommodation entries.

For AY 2014-15, the Assessing Officer treated purchases of Rs. 1.43 crore from M/s R.D. Technologies as bogus and added the entire amount, invoking Section 115BBE. The assessee contended that the purchases were capital in nature, financed through bank loans, supported by invoices, bank statements, insurance policies, and other documentation.

For AY 2016-17, additions were made on alleged bogus purchases from two parties, despite the assessee submitting work orders, completion certificates, and confirmations showing that goods were used in Government contracts.

The CIT(A) partly upheld additions for AY 2014-15 and fully confirmed additions for AY 2016-17, leading to appeals before the Tribunal.

Issue Before Tribunal: Whether additions on account of alleged bogus purchases can be sustained when the assessee furnishes documentary evidence of purchases, existence of assets, and corresponding sales/work execution is not disputed by the Revenue.

ITAT’s Decision: The Tribunal allowed both appeals and deleted the additions.

For AY 2014-15, it held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating capital asset purchases as bogus. The existence of assets was established through bank financing and insurance coverage, which necessarily involved verification. Since the purchases were capitalised and not claimed as revenue expenditure, the addition lacked factual basis.

For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had demonstrated actual consumption of goods in Government projects through work orders and completion certificates. The Revenue neither disputed the sales nor conducted any independent inquiry with suppliers or contractors. Merely relying on Investigation Wing reports without rebutting the assessee’s evidence was held insufficient.

The Tribunal reiterated that when sales are accepted, purchases cannot be treated as entirely bogus. Thus, the additions were unsustainable and therefore rejected.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
ITAT Allows Actuarial Employee Benefit Provision; Deletes TDS-Based Disallowances Actuarial Employee Benefit Claims Allowed; ITAT Deletes Large Expense Additions ITAT Quashes Assessment Passed in Name of Non-Existent Amalgamated Company HC Directs GST Authorities to Avoid Parallel Proceedings Under Section 6(2)(b) HC Dismisses Review; Imposes Rs. 50,000 Costs for Dishonest AttemptView All Posts