2012 (9) TMI 258 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of Bogus purchases - transaction shown by the assessee in the name of M/s.T held to be paper entries only on ground of inability of assessee to furnish any clarification along with supporting evidences in regard to transaction - Held that - Purchases could not be bogus if they have participated in the sales or in the closing stock. Paper entries are part of the books of account and the Excise authorities have accepted the purchases in accordance with the provisions of the Excise Duty Act which the assessee claims in accordance with the returns filed. Also, assessing authorities have accepted the Excise duty being the part of the turnover in accordance with the provisions of the I.T.Act to be allowed to the assessee. Further, outstanding balance to M/s.T cannot be denied as unexplained credit u/s.68 for holding certain purchases as bogus. Arrangement which is allowable under law by Excise authorities has been misconstrued to the extent that the very sales which has been accepted as genuine by the authorities below including the excise duty component as was taken care of under the Excise Duty Act was for purchases only. In view of aforesaid, addition made on account of bogus purchases is directed to be deleted - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Treatment of genuine purchases as bogus

Analysis:

The case involved the assessment of the appellant, a firm engaged in manufacturing and trading of steel products, regarding the treatment of purchases made from a specific entity as bogus. The Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions with the said entity were mere paper entries, leading to the addition of the total transaction amount as unexplained income. The appellant contested this decision before the first appellate authority, arguing that the purchases were genuine and substantiated with relevant documentation. The appellant highlighted the utilization of purchases for claiming CENVAT credit and the compliance with Central Excise rules. The appellant emphasized that the Excise authorities had accepted the purchases, and the disallowance by the Income-tax authorities was unjustified. The appellant also pointed out that the disallowance would affect the closing stock and result in double taxation. The appellant's contention was supported by evidence presented in the form of ER-1 returns and other relevant documents.

The appellant's argument was further supported by the fact that the goods purchased were used in manufacturing activities, recorded in prescribed registers, and payments were made through crossed cheques. The appellant also referenced legal precedents to support the genuineness of the purchases and challenged the Assessing Officer's decision to treat the purchases as bogus. The appellant's counsel contended that the purchases were legitimate, and the Excise duty component was duly accounted for, as evidenced by the utilization of CENVAT credit. The appellant's position was that the purchases were valid, and the Excise authorities had acknowledged them, thus questioning the Income-tax authorities' disallowance.

Upon considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal found that the purchases could not be deemed as bogus if they were reflected in sales or closing stock. The Tribunal noted that the Excise authorities had accepted the purchases, and the appellant had complied with the relevant regulations. The Tribunal concluded that the purchases were genuine and that the assessing authorities had misconstrued the situation. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the deletion of the addition made by the authorities, holding the purchases as bogus. The Tribunal emphasized that the Excise duty component had been appropriately accounted for, and the purchases were legitimate, as acknowledged by the Excise authorities. The Tribunal's decision overturned the lower authorities' findings and allowed the appellant's appeal, thereby resolving the issue in favor of the appellant.