2013 (4) TMI 111 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of unverifiable purchase - Held that - In the above circumstances, in our considered view, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the disallowances, which were made on surmises and conjectures alone. The assessee had pointed out that the payments were made through cheque and that there was some further evidence of receipt of goods. No interference is called for. This our view is also supported by the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd (2009 (1) TMI 104 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ), wherein exactly the same issue, went before Hon ble High Court and it is confirmed - Revenue s appleal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of unverifiable purchases based on statement of seller.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case was the disallowance of unverifiable purchases amounting to Rs.27.32 lakhs by the Assessing Officer. The purchases were alleged to have been made from a concern involved in issuing bogus sale bills without supplying goods, as per the statement of Shri Rohit Panwalla. The key question raised was whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting this addition based on the statement on oath recorded from the seller.

Upon appeal, the CIT(Appeals) noted that Shri Rohit Panwalla did not specifically implicate the assessee, and the Assessing Officer failed to investigate whether such transactions actually took place with the assessee. Subsequently, the Revenue challenged the decision before the Tribunal, which ultimately dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide any material linking the assessee to the alleged statements and transactions. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's explanation, supported by evidence of receiving goods and making payments via cheques, was not rebutted by the Revenue with concrete evidence.

The Tribunal further emphasized that the alleged maker of statements was not cross-examined by the assessee, despite a specific request. The decision to delete the disallowances was based on the lack of concrete evidence linking the assessee to the alleged fraudulent transactions. The Tribunal cited a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case to support its decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that no interference was warranted as the issue was primarily factual in nature, and the Revenue failed to establish a direct connection between the assessee and the fraudulent transactions.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Tax Appeal, emphasizing that the entire issue hinged on the assessment of facts. The absence of examination of Shri Rohit Panwalla, lack of direct implication of the assessee in any statements, and the evidence of payments made through cheques and receipt of goods supported the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowances. The Court affirmed that the Revenue's case was based on assumptions and conjectures without substantial evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.