9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1127 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted Purchases - After issuing notice u/s 133(6), AO, treated some purchases as bogus - Assessee contended that when since the department has accepted the sale as genuine, obviously the corresponding purchase would also be genuine - HELD THAT - So far as the genuineness of the purchase is concerned, we find that the assessee has claimed to have purchased the finished goods. However, in respect of all the parties, on the sale bills, there was no telephone number or no printed bill number. The assessee was unable to produce the confirmation from any of the parties. These facts clearly establish that the assessee did not make the purchase from the above parties and claim of such purchases was not genuine. - Decided against the assessee. Estimation of income - HELD THAT - On this fact, the decision of the ITAT in the case of M/S. SANKET STEEL TRADERS VERSUS. ITO, WARD-5 (1) VADODARA. 2011 (5) TMI 961 - ITAT AHMEDABAD , would be squarely applicable. We respectfully following the above decision of the restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchase. We direct the AO to work out disallowance accordingly. Decided partly in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 40,69,546/- by disallowing the purchase of finished fabrics as unaccounted purchase. 2. Rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) by the AO. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 40,69,546/- by disallowing the purchase of finished fabrics as unaccounted purchase: The assessee claimed to have made purchases of finished fabrics from 31 parties. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that none of these parties were available at the given addresses, and the purchase bills lacked essential details such as telephone numbers and printed bill numbers. Notices issued under Section 133(6) of the IT Act were returned undelivered, and an Inspector's investigation confirmed the non-existence of these parties at the provided addresses. The AO also discovered that the cheques issued for these purchases were encashed by different entities, not the supposed sellers, leading to the conclusion that the purchases were bogus. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 40,69,546/- to the total income of the assessee as unaccounted purchases. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that the purchases were genuine and payments were made by cheque. They contended that the entire quantity of purchased cloth was sold, as evidenced by the audit report, implying that the purchases must have been genuine since the sales were accepted as such. The assessee referred to the ITAT's decision in the case of Vijay Proteins, suggesting a lumpsum disallowance rather than a complete disallowance. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's point that the finished goods were indeed purchased, albeit possibly from different parties than those listed. Citing the ITAT's decision in the case of M/s. Sanket Steel Traders, the Tribunal concluded that while the purchases were not from the claimed parties, they were still made, justifying a partial disallowance. The Tribunal directed the AO to disallow 12.5% of the purchases, aligning with the precedent set in similar cases. 2. Rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) by the AO: The AO rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to the discrepancies and lack of verifiable details in the purchase records. The Tribunal's analysis supported the AO's findings, noting the absence of confirmation from any of the parties and the inconsistencies in the purchase documentation. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of accounts, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate and verifiable records. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to disallow 12.5% of the purchases instead of the entire amount, based on the principle established in previous ITAT decisions. The rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) was upheld due to the significant discrepancies and lack of verifiable details in the purchase records. The order was pronounced in Open Court on 26th July, 2011.
|
