9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1319 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of bogus/fictitious purchases - profit rate determination - Held that - Considering the facts in totality AO held that the assessee had not made any purchases from these parties and therefore, the transactions were bogus, and even otherwise the Bench of the ITAT, prima facie found that purchase record in the books of accounts were bogus with a view to suppress the profit and therefore, while considering their opinion as the same would be just and proper to apply net profit rate of 5% on the goods sold but while coming to the instant case it is clear that in the instant case the purchases have been confirmed through vouchers and stock tallied properly and sale of the assessee also not been doubted and even otherwise the profit earned by the assessee has already been subjected to the tax, and the Revenue Department failed to bring any circumstance/material to establish that the addition can be restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases and/or even otherwise the transactions carried by the assessee are bogus purchases, hence, in our considered opinion we do not found any substantive reason and logic in sustaining addition @5% on account of bogus purchases. Hence, the same is deleted.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued under Section 148 and the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Justification of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus/fictitious purchases. 3. Legitimacy of the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the bogus/fictitious purchases. 4. Consideration of the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Notice and Reassessment Order: The assessee challenged the legality of the notice issued under Section 148 and the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming they were illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. However, these grounds were not pressed by the assessee during the proceedings. 2. Justification of the Addition by AO: The AO made an addition of ?82,01,493/- on account of bogus/fictitious purchases. The AO's decision was based on the information received from the DIT (Inv.), Amritsar, indicating that the assessee had taken accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Jain Group by showing bogus purchases and making payments through RTGS, which were subsequently returned in cash. The AO concluded that the purchases were fictitious based on field enquiries and the non-existence of the parties at the given addresses. 3. Legitimacy of CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases, amounting to ?4,10,074/-. The CIT(A) relied on precedents such as the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Bhola Nath Poly Fab (P) Ltd., which held that only the profit margin embedded in such purchases should be subject to tax. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts and that the sales were not doubted. 4. Consideration of Evidence and Explanations: The assessee argued that all transactions were made through RTGS/cheques, and complete stock tally and original vouchers were provided. The assessee also submitted that the broker through whom the purchases were made had died, and the death certificate was produced. The CIT(A) considered these explanations and evidence, noting that the purchases could not be entirely bogus if the sales were not doubted and the profit from the business was already taxed. Tribunal's Observations and Decision: - The Tribunal noted that the entire undisclosed income generated from bogus transactions should not be added to the total income. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., which clarified that dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) without reasons does not constitute res judicata or merger. - The Tribunal observed that the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected, and the purchases were made through verified banking channels. The Tribunal also noted that the sales were not doubted, and the profit from the business was already taxed. - The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the profit margin embedded in the bogus purchases, aligning with the judgments of various High Courts, including the Bombay High Court in CIT-1, Mumbai vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. - The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the CIT(A) had rightly restricted the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases. However, the Tribunal found no substantive reason to sustain the addition of 5% on account of bogus purchases in the assessee's appeal, leading to the deletion of the 5% addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, deleting the 5% addition on account of bogus purchases. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of considering the profit margin embedded in the purchases rather than adding the entire amount as income.
|
