2014 (3) TMI 147 - HC - Income Tax

Restriction of addition Bogus purchases made - Applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Act - Whether the Tribunal has substantially erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 5% of the total bogus purchases made Held that - The entire issue is based on materials on record - The Tribunal did not accept the Revenue s stand that the purchases were bogus in the sense that no material was received - the Tribunal held that the material was actually received for which payments were made - The Tribunal has not committed any error so as to give rise to any question of law - The Tribunal looking to the material retained portion by giving cogent reasons - the assessee could produce before the authorities the precise rate at which the purchases were made from M/s. Vishal Traders and other suppliers to demonstrate that the purchases made on the same day carried the same price - This would substantially eliminate the angle of the purchase price being artificially inflated - the Tribunal also noted other parameters such as higher net and gross profit rates of the present year compared to the earlier years of the recent past thus no question of law arises Decided against Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 5% of the total bogus purchases from a specific trader?
2. Whether the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act apply to cash purchases claimed to have been made from other parties?

Analysis:
1. The first issue involves the addition of Rs. 36.28 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer, with the Tribunal ultimately retaining only 5%. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing and exports, faced scrutiny over purchases from M/s. Vishal Traders. The Assessing Officer deemed the purchases bogus due to cash withdrawals after cheque payments. The CIT [A] partially relieved the assessee, taxing 25% of the amount. The Tribunal, noting better profit rates and contradictions in statements, reduced the addition to 5%. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the received material and lack of evidence for a higher addition.

2. The second issue concerns the application of Section 40A(3) to cash purchases totaling Rs. 36.28 lakhs. The assessee argued for the genuineness of purchases supported by detailed records and matching rates with other suppliers. The Tribunal, considering maintained registers and internal contradictions, reduced the addition to 5%. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision, distinguishing it from a previous case where inflated prices led to a 25% addition. The Court highlighted the lack of justification for a gross addition and supported the Tribunal's reasoning based on available evidence and profit rates.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to retain only 5% of the disputed purchases. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence, consistency in pricing, and profit rates in determining the legitimacy of transactions, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's findings based on the material on record.