2011 (9) TMI 973 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - Held that - It is not the same as to say that for the purchase and sales which cannot be accounted for estimated profit be added for computation of income at the rate of 25% of the bogus purchase as those cases need different appreciation from the present kind where claim of purchases and sales is a complete eyewash. Allowing disallowance at the rate of 25% the bogus purchase in cases like present one would amount to endorsing outright conduct of illegality.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this Tax Appeal are:

(a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) was correct in law in confirming an addition of 25% of the amount of bogus purchases purportedly made from nonexistent parties;

(b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in modifying the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) and directing the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to consider disallowance of only 25% of such bogus purchases, despite holding that the purchases recorded in the books of accounts were wholly bogus;

(c) Whether the Tribunal's reliance on the precedent set in Vijay Proteins Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which involved undisputed receipt and use of materials in production, was appropriate in the present case where the purchases were entirely fictitious and no goods were received or sold.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Legality of confirming addition of 25% of bogus purchases and modification of CIT(A) order

The relevant legal framework involves principles of income computation under the Income Tax Act, particularly relating to disallowance of bogus purchases and additions to income on account of unsubstantiated or fictitious transactions. The Assessing Officer initially made an addition of Rs. 17,46,130/- representing the entire amount of bogus purchases from three entities-Girnar Sales Corporation, Shiv Metal Corporation, and Hindustan Metal Corporation-after conducting discreet inquiries. These inquiries revealed that the entities had no business premises, did not carry out actual sales, and issued bills merely for commission income. The cheques received from the assessee were encashed and the balance amount was returned to the payer, indicating circular transactions without genuine purchase or sale.

The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's findings, distinguishing the facts from the precedent in Vijay Proteins Pvt. Ltd., where materials were undisputedly received and used in production. The Tribunal, however, modified the order and restricted the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases, relying on the Vijay Proteins decision and the agreed position of parties that 25% disallowance would be fair and reasonable.

The Court analyzed the facts and found that the Tribunal's reliance on Vijay Proteins was misplaced. Unlike Vijay Proteins, where goods were purchased and used but sales were unaccounted, in the present case, the purchases themselves were entirely fictitious. The third-party sellers admitted non-existence of business and transactions were mere commissions without actual movement of goods. The assessee had not maintained any stock records to substantiate purchases or sales, rendering the entire claim a sham.

The Court emphasized that allowing disallowance at the rate of 25% of bogus purchases in such a scenario would effectively endorse illegal conduct. The legal principle applied was that when purchases are wholly fictitious and no goods are received or sold, the entire amount should be disallowed and added back to income. The Court held that the Tribunal's modification to restrict disallowance to 25% was erroneous in law.

Issue (c): Appropriateness of reliance on Vijay Proteins precedent

The Vijay Proteins case involved undisputed receipt and use of materials in production, with the issue being unaccounted sales. The CIT(A) distinguished the present case on this basis. The Tribunal, however, relied on Vijay Proteins to justify partial disallowance. The Court found this reliance wholly unsustainable due to the fundamental factual differences. In the present case, the parties named as sellers were nonexistent or did not conduct any business, and the transactions were circular with commission payments and return of funds, evidencing no genuine purchase or sale.

The Court noted that the ratio in Vijay Proteins applies only where goods have been received and used but sales remain unaccounted, necessitating estimation of income. It does not apply where the entire purchase is a sham transaction. Thus, the Tribunal's application of Vijay Proteins was legally incorrect and factually inapposite.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"Allowing disallowance at the rate of 25% the bogus purchase in cases like present one would amount to endorsing outright conduct of illegality."

This statement crystallizes the principle that where purchases are entirely fictitious, the entire amount must be disallowed and added back to income, and partial disallowance is impermissible.

Further, the Court concluded:

"It is convincing sufficiently from the materials on record that in absence of any kind of purchase or sale it would not be befitting and desirable to employ the ratio of M/s Vijay Proteins Pvt Ltd (supra) as has been done by the Tribunal in the instant case."

This establishes that precedents involving genuine receipt and use of goods cannot be extended to cases involving completely bogus transactions.

Finally, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order restricting disallowance to 25% and restored the Assessing Officer's addition of the entire amount of Rs. 17,46,130/- as bogus purchases, directing consequential computation of income accordingly.