100 Percent Addition for Bogus Purchases Is Sustainable Only at 6 Percent Based on Precedent

By | May 13, 2026

100 Percent Addition for Bogus Purchases Is Sustainable Only at 6 Percent Based on Precedent

Issue

Whether the revenue is justified in making a 100% addition for bogus purchases from the Bhanwarlal Jain Group when the appellate authorities and High Courts have consistently restricted such disallowances to 6% in similar matters.

Facts

  • The assessee-company recorded purchases from the Bhanwarlal Jain Group during the Assessment Year 2010-11.

  • The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, provided information indicating that the Bhanwarlal Jain Group was a known provider of accommodation entries (bogus purchases and unsecured loans).

  • Based on this data, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire purchase amount as bogus and made a 100% addition to the assessee’s taxable income.

  • The CIT(A) reduced the addition to 6% of the alleged bogus purchases, a decision later affirmed by the ITAT.

  • The High Court upheld the 6% disallowance, noting that similar appeals by the Department regarding the same group had been dismissed previously.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court found no grounds for interference with the High Court’s ruling.

  • It was noted that a connected Special Leave Petition (SLP) involving the same group and the same 6% disallowance rate (Surya Impex) had already been dismissed.

  • Consequently, the Revenue’s SLP was dismissed, and the 6% disallowance was sustained.

Key Takeaways

  • Reasonable Disallowance: In cases of bogus purchases where the sales are not doubted, courts often reject 100% additions, opting instead to tax the potential “profit element” or “savings” saved by the assessee (here, fixed at 6%).

  • Consistency in Precedent: Once a specific percentage of disallowance (e.g., 6% for the Bhanwarlal Jain Group) is accepted by the High Court and the Supreme Court in one case, it becomes a binding benchmark for other assessees linked to the same entry provider.

  • Burden of Proof: While the Revenue can identify “accommodation entries,” the quantum of addition must be realistic rather than punitive if the underlying business activity exists.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Sunilkumar Parasmal Jain*
Sanjay Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
SLP (CIVIL) Diary No. 18902 OF 2026
APRIL  17, 2026
S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G., Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Rajat VaishnawPrashant Singh IiIshaan Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Jha, Advs. for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. However, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court as, titled, “Pr. CIT v. Surya Impex [SLP (C) No. 26305 of 2023, dated 28-11-2023]“, arising out of the order relied upon by the High Court in the impugned order, was dismissed by this Court on 28.11.2023.
3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.