2016 (2) TMI 498 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - Held that - AO has not pointed out any defects in the books of accounts, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases particularly when the GP rate declared by the assessee was progressive and was accepted by the AO. The observations made by the assessing officer when analyzed, it can be safely concluded that it is certainly not the case of assessing officer that what is stated by Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma alone is absolutely correct and consequently, it cannot be used in the case of the assessee till it is established beyond doubt that what is stated by him is true and correct. Whatever findings are recorded in the case of Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma, it is simply a reflection of his system of working, presentations and conduct which cannot be generalized and imported to the case of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,38,86,670/- by CIT(A) on the grounds of lack of confrontation with the assessee.
2. Deletion of addition based on the acceptance of sales implying acceptance of purchases.
3. Possibility of purchases from parties other than M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises.
4. Whether the AO disturbed the trading results disclosed by the assessee.
5. Separate addition of Rs. 16,44,662/- for M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises being a bogus creditor.
6. Applicability of telescoping in the context of Section 40A(3) violations.
7. General grounds for modifying or amending the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,38,86,670/- by CIT(A) on Grounds of Lack of Confrontation:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,38,86,670/- made by the AO, noting that the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO's reliance on Sharma's statement, which was later retracted, lacked independent verification. The AO failed to provide the assessee with the material used against him, violating principles of natural justice.

2. Deletion of Addition Based on Acceptance of Sales Implying Acceptance of Purchases:
The CIT(A) held that if the sales were accepted by the AO, the corresponding purchases must also be accepted. The AO did not find any defects in the sales records or books of accounts. The CIT(A) noted that the AO's allegation about cash withdrawals did not conclusively prove that purchases were bogus. The sales were through banking channels, and there was no evidence of cash deposits in the assessee's accounts.

3. Possibility of Purchases from Parties Other than M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises:
The CIT(A) acknowledged the possibility that the assessee might have purchased materials from other parties to save on local taxes, which could not be ruled out. This was inferred from the consistent trading results and the absence of any doubt over the sales. The CIT(A) suggested that the purchases could be treated as unverifiable, warranting a reasonable profit margin rather than the entire purchase value being added to income.

4. Whether the AO Disturbed the Trading Results Disclosed by the Assessee:
The CIT(A) found that the AO did not disturb the trading results disclosed by the assessee. The payments for purchases and sales were made through proper banking channels, and there were no cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's addition of the entire purchase value was unjustified.

5. Separate Addition of Rs. 16,44,662/- for M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises Being a Bogus Creditor:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 5% on the unverifiable purchases of Rs. 2,38,86,670/-, resulting in an addition of Rs. 11,94,334/-. The CIT(A) did not make a separate addition of Rs. 16,44,662/- for M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, as the entire purchases from this firm were disallowed and added to the income.

6. Applicability of Telescoping in the Context of Section 40A(3) Violations:
The CIT(A) did not accept the plea of telescoping, noting that the issues related to Section 40A(3) violations and the extra profit from transactions with M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises were separate. Therefore, telescoping was not applicable.

7. General Grounds for Modifying or Amending the Appeal:
The CIT(A) dismissed the general grounds for modifying or amending the appeal, as they did not arise from the order.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,38,86,670/- was upheld, and the application of a net profit rate of 5% on unverifiable purchases was deemed appropriate. The CIT(A) ensured that principles of natural justice were followed, and the AO's reliance on unverified statements was not sufficient to justify the additions.

← Previous Next →