2015 (5) TMI 1048 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unexplained/unproved purchases - Held that - After considering the impugned order as well as the order of the Tribunal in other cases and the material placed on record, we find that first of all, Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta has retracted his statement before the A.O. and also filed affidavit admitting that sales made to the assessee are genuine. The assessee has also produced evidences like copy of confirmed ledger account, copy of bank statement showing the payment made for the purchases and sale bills. All these documents have been placed in the paper book before us. The assessee s case had been that no adverse inference should be drawn on the basis of statement recorded without reference to the assessee. No further enquiry was carried out in the case of the assessee or Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta despite the fact that statement was subsequently retracted by him. We deleted the addition as relying on case of M/s Jitendra Harshadkumar & Company 2013 (11) TMI 1605 - ITAT MUMBAI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of 10% of disputed purchases as unexplained/unproved purchase/investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-sustaining of addition under Section 69 despite accepting that purchases were made from undisclosed/unverifiable/unidentifiable parties.
3. Consideration of retracted statements and affidavits in determining the genuineness of purchases.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of 10% of Disputed Purchases

The assessee challenged the addition of 10% of disputed purchases amounting to Rs. 1,17,624 out of a total addition of Rs. 11,76,242 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) as unexplained/unproved purchase/investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. had relied on the statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta, who initially admitted to providing accommodation sale bills but later retracted his statement through an affidavit. The CIT(A) observed that although the purchases from Gupta's party were considered bogus, there could be no sales without corresponding purchases. Hence, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 10% of the purchases from Gupta's party.

Issue 2: Non-sustaining of Addition under Section 69

The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by not sustaining the addition under Section 69 after accepting that the purchases were made from undisclosed/unverifiable/unidentifiable parties. The Revenue argued that the purchases from the group concerns of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta were only accommodation entries and not actual purchases. The CIT(A) concluded that the entire purchases could not be treated as bogus and restricted the addition to 10% of the purchases from Gupta's party.

Issue 3: Consideration of Retracted Statements and Affidavits

The Tribunal considered the retraction of Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta's statement and the affidavits filed by him and his family members, which affirmed that the sales made to the assessee were genuine. The assessee provided evidence such as confirmed ledger accounts, bank statements showing payments made for purchases, and sale bills. The Tribunal noted that no further inquiry was carried out by the A.O. despite the retraction of the statement. The Tribunal found that similar issues on similar facts had been decided in favor of the assessee in other cases, such as M/s Jitendra Harshadkumar & Company and M/s Pramit Textiles, where the entire additions made by the A.O. were deleted.

Judgment:

The Tribunal, after considering the impugned order, the order of the Tribunal in other cases, and the material placed on record, found that the purchases made by the assessee were genuine. The Tribunal followed the decisions in the cases of M/s Jitendra Harshadkumar & Company and M/s Pramit Textiles, where similar additions were deleted. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to delete the entire addition of purchases, allowing the assessee's appeals and dismissing the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2005-06, 2007-08, and 2008-09.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the A.O. were based on presumptions and lacked substantial evidence. The retraction of statements and the affidavits filed by the concerned parties, along with the supporting documents provided by the assessee, were sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

← Previous Next →