2015 (12) TMI 378 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - purchases were made from undisclosed/unverifiable/unidentifiable parties in the grey market by investing in cash and the purchases from the group concerns of Shri Rakeshkumar Gupta & family were only accommodation entries and not actual purchases - Held that - The assessee before the AO vide letter dated 26th August, 2010 have submitted the entire quantitative details of opening stock, purchases, sales made during the year and closing stock, the details of which have already been noted above. The assessee in support of the entries of purchases and sales has produced, purchase bills sales bills and quantitative tally in which no defect has been pointed out. On these facts and also once the very basis of information that assessee was engaged in getting accommodation bill from Rakeshkumar Gupta has been denied by the Rakeshkumar Gupta and its concerns then, there remains no basis for making any addition on account of bogus purchases.If the opening stock, closing stock, sales, gross profit have not been disturbed and quantitative details of purchases are fully verifiable, then no addition on account of purchases can be made. Thus, the finding of the CIT(A) to this extent is upheld. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has went step further and made an addition of 10% on account of gross profit on such alleged purchases on the ground that such an addition will cover whatever little discrepancy is there in the trading account. Thus, we do not find any reason to deviate from such conclusion of Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against CIT(A)'s order on addition u/s 69 for undisclosed purchases from unverifiable parties.

Analysis:
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the addition u/s 69 for undisclosed purchases made by the assessee from unverifiable parties. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in not confirming the addition, especially considering the purchases were made from undisclosed parties in the grey market and were only accommodation entries. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) should have at least confirmed the addition to the extent of the peak of purchases made from such parties. The revenue's grounds for appeal were detailed in the order.

The brief facts of the case revealed that the assessee was involved in trading unbranded cloth and had filed its return for the assessment year 2003-04. Following survey operations in the case of another person, it was discovered that the assessee had obtained accommodation bills from certain parties. The AO, after reopening the case u/s 147, added the entire purchases as "bogus purchases" u/s 69 since the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to support the genuineness of the purchases.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted various details, including quantitative data of purchases and sales, bank statements, and ledger accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) analyzed the month-wise quantitative details and concluded that since the sales were not disputed, the entire alleged purchases could not be added. However, the CIT(A) decided to add 10% of the purchases to fill the gap in gross profit, resulting in a reduced addition.

During the proceedings, the DR argued in favor of the AO's decision to add the purchases, citing the lack of maintained stock records and unverifiable quantitative details. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel contended that since the sales were accepted, no addition should have been made to the purchases. The counsel also emphasized that the information from the survey operation was unreliable as it was based on retracted statements.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had provided detailed quantitative data and supporting evidence for the transactions. The Tribunal agreed that since the sales and other details were verifiable, no addition on account of purchases was warranted. The Tribunal also supported the CIT(A)'s 10% addition to cover any minor discrepancies in the trading account.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objections, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision on the addition of 10% to the purchases. The Cross Objection raised by the assessee regarding the addition was not pressed during the hearing and was therefore treated as dismissed.