2016 (3) TMI 1368 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - Orders of the Tribunal including that of the Unique Metal Industries 2015 (10) TMI 2753 - ITAT NEW DELHI the AO had recorded similarly worded reasons and name of the parties form which the assessee alleged to have made bogus purchases were also same ex cept the amount mentioned therein in the reasons recorded in the tabular form are same as in the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we have no alternative but to follow the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries supra and other as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the initiation of reassessment proceedings as well a s issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid and the same was void ab initio and thus we quash the same and subsequently the assessment order passed in pursuance thereto is also quashed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee are allowed. Bogus purchases - Addition of 20% purchases made by the assessee during F.Y. 2005-06 pertaining to A.Y 2006-07 - HELD THAT - On specific query from the Bench, the ld. DR could not bring to our notice any cogent or relevant material or evidence which may compel us to take a different view which could lead us to not to follow the decision of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries supra and other relevant orders. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries supra which deleted the addition as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) being 20% of the purchases made by the assessee during the relevant F.Y. Consequently, the grounds of the assessee on merits are also allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment.
2. Rejection of books of accounts.
3. Addition on account of bogus purchases.
4. Confirmation of addition to the extent of 20% of purchases.
5. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine.
6. Use of material collected at the back of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment:
The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the AO initiated reassessment based on information received from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which included details of accommodation entries provided by certain individuals. However, the Tribunal found that at the time of recording the reasons for reopening, the AO did not have the statements or any substantial material from the entry providers. The AO acted mechanically on the information received without independently applying his mind. Citing precedents like "Sarthak Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO" and "Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO," the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to lack of application of mind and quashed the reassessment order.

2. Rejection of Books of Accounts:
The assessee contended that the AO and the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the books of accounts despite maintaining proper records. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the addition on account of bogus purchases.

3. Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases:
The AO made an addition of ?3,80,792/- on account of bogus purchases, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, referring to its earlier decision in the case of "Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO," observed that similar additions were deleted as the purchases were not found to be bogus. The Tribunal followed the same reasoning and deleted the addition made by the AO.

4. Confirmation of Addition to the Extent of 20% of Purchases:
The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 20% of the purchases made by the assessee. The Tribunal, relying on the decision in "Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO," held that the addition of 20% was too high and not justified. It was noted that the correct approach would be to estimate the profit by applying a comparative profit rate in the same trade, rather than making a punitive addition. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition confirmed by the CIT(A).

5. Denial of Opportunity to Cross-Examine:
The assessee argued that the addition was made without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were used against them. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the decision to quash the reassessment proceedings rendered this argument moot.

6. Use of Material Collected at the Back of the Assessee:
The assessee contended that the addition was based on material collected at the back of the assessee without providing an opportunity to rebut the same. The Tribunal, by quashing the reassessment proceedings, implicitly addressed this issue, as the reassessment itself was found to be invalid due to lack of proper application of mind by the AO.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings and deleting the additions made on account of bogus purchases. The decision was based on the lack of independent application of mind by the AO and the mechanical reliance on information received from higher authorities without proper verification. The Tribunal's decision in similar cases, such as "Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO," played a significant role in reaching this conclusion.

← Previous Next →