ITAT Restricts Bogus Purchase Addition to 5% GP; Deletes Protective Rebate & Discount Disallowance:

ITAT Restricts Bogus Purchase Addition to 5% GP; Deletes Protective Rebate & Discount Disallowance

Search-based 153A assessments partly sustained; protective addition held invalid in absence of substantive assessment

ITAT Restricts Bogus Purchase Addition to 5% GP

authorMeetu KumaridateFeb 20, 2026
Last update on Feb 20, 2026
ITAT Restricts Bogus Purchase Addition to 5% GP; Deletes Protective Rebate & Discount Disallowance A search conducted on 06.05.2014 in the Jaswant Group covered Jagatjit Industries Ltd., leading to assessments under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14. For AYs 2011–12 and 2012-13, the Assessing Officer treated purchases of Rs. 65.71 lakh and Rs. 41.30 lakh as bogus, relying mainly on the statement of an alleged accommodation entry provider and the absence of supplier infrastructure.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
Before the CIT(A), the assessee relied on cross-examination, banking payments, confirmations and consistent GP ratios. The additions were deleted. Separately, rebate and discount claims were disallowed on a purely protective basis, with the Assessing Officer observing that substantive additions would be made in another person’s hands. The Revenue appealed before the Tribunal. Main Issue: Whether deletion of bogus purchase additions was justified, and whether protective additions for rebate and discount could survive without a corresponding substantive addition.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
ITAT's Decision: The Tribunal held that while the supplier’s statement created doubt, the Department had not disturbed sales or overall book results.  The Tribunal directed estimation of additional gross profit at 5% of the disputed purchases, clarifying that the direction was case-specific. Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011–12 and 2012–13 were partly allowed to this extent. The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot stand independently without a substantive addition in another person’s case. Relying on judicial principles including Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT, the Tribunal deleted the protective additions in full. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed and the assessee’s cross-objections were allowed. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…