2015 (11) TMI 1671 - AT - Income Tax

G.P. addition - bogus purchases - Held that - Purchases made from three parties were added by the AO on the plea that assessee has just taken a purchase bill. The CIT(A) after verifying the records observed that as per the monthly quantitative details of purchase and sales, the assessee had sold goods so purchased, when the sale is not disputed, the addition on entire alleged purchase is also not justified. The CIT(A) also observed that as per elementary rule of accountancy as well as taxation loss/profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from the sales. Since the department has accepted the sales, the CIT(A) deleted the addition after sustaining the GP addition of 10% to plug the possible leakage of revenue. Hence, the addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. Detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) had not been controverted by department and assessee by brining any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for sustaining addition of 10% of such purchases. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment years 2002-03 & 2003-04 regarding the addition of purchases made by the assessee.

Analysis:

1. Background and Reopening of Assessment:
The appeals were filed by the revenue and cross objections by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment years 2002-03 & 2003-04. The assessee, a Partnership Firm engaged in trading, had its case reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information gathered during survey operations at related premises. The Assessing Officer (AO) added purchases made from certain concerns to the assessee's income.

2. CIT(A)'s Observations and Decision:
The CIT(A) upheld the addition of 10% of GP on the purchases and deleted the remaining balance. The CIT(A) noted that the AO relied on statements recorded during survey operations, which were later retracted by the individuals. The CIT(A) highlighted that the appellant did not maintain a stock register but submitted details of purchases and sales, indicating no sales without corresponding purchases. The CIT(A) reasoned that the additions were not justified as they could be purchases from the grey market regularized with accommodation bills. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged purchases.

3. Appellate Tribunal Decision:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the rival contentions and found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of alleged purchases beyond the 10% GP addition. The Tribunal noted that the department accepted the sales, and as per accounting principles, profit cannot be ascertained without deducting the cost of purchase from sales. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee for both assessment years 2002-03 & 2003-04 based on the reasoning provided.

4. Final Decision and Dismissal:
Both the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal based on the findings and reasoning presented in the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the alleged purchases, considering the facts and circumstances of the case for both assessment years.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on purchases to 10% of the alleged amount, dismissing the appeals and cross objections for the assessment years 2002-03 & 2003-04.