2017 (9) TMI 1805 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - G.P. estimation - non-appearance of the suppliers before the AO to verify the purchases - HELD THAT - The issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Geolife Organics ors. 2017 (5) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI and in the case of M/s. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (2) TMI 1128 - ITAT MUMBAI held that when purchases are supported by sufficient documentary evidences then merely because of non-appearance before the AO, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Thus estimate the GP @ 2%.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of bogus purchases and addition of income - Application of profit rate on unverified purchases - Compliance with notice under section 133(6) - Allegation of inflated GP - Tribunal's decision on estimating GP percentage.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the assessment of bogus purchases made by the assessee, leading to an addition of income by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to non-compliance with a notice under section 133(6). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) upheld a 4% profit rate on unverified purchases, considering the already declared gross profit (GP) of 20.88%. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine, supported by proper records, and argued against the inflated GP assessment, citing a trading impossibility of 34%. The dispute centered on the estimation of GP percentage, with the assessee relying on a Tribunal judgment to propose a 2% GP rate.

The CIT(A) justified the 4% profit rate by inferring that the appellant could manipulate purchase prices, emphasizing the need for guesswork in such cases. The assessee's submission highlighted the longevity of their business, proper record-keeping, and unsuccessful attempts to produce suppliers for verification. The absence of specific allegations and cross-examination further supported the assessee's stance against the inflated GP assessment. The Department, however, supported the Revenue Authorities' decision.

The Judicial Member, after considering the contentions of both parties, referred to previous Tribunal decisions to estimate the GP at 2%, aligning with the principles established in various judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal's reliance on precedents emphasized that the non-appearance of suppliers before the AO does not automatically invalidate purchases if supported by adequate documentation. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, concluding the matter by estimating the GP at 2% in line with the Tribunal's decision.

Overall, the judgment addressed the issues of assessing bogus purchases, applying profit rates on unverified transactions, compliance with notice requirements, allegations of inflated GP, and the Tribunal's decision on estimating the GP percentage. The detailed analysis provided insights into the reasoning behind the decisions made at each stage of the appeal process, ensuring a fair and just resolution based on legal principles and precedents.