2019 (2) TMI 1829 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - disallowance of 12.5% of the purchases treated as non-genuine - HELD THAT - CIT(A) sustained the disallowance in view of the fact that the assessee accepted for the disallowance and in which case there is no grievance for the assessee. As relying on RAMESHCHANDRA AND COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 1987 (1) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where the assessee has made a statement of fact making admission for agreeing for addition/disallowance, assessee could have no grievance if the taxing authority taxes him in accordance with such statement. Therefore, respectfully following the same we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s. 148 without tangible material
2. Validity of assessment order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147
3. Additions made without providing copies of documents or opportunity to cross-examine
4. Adhoc disallowance of purchases from certain parties
5. Disallowance of 12.5% on certain purchases

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the Assessment year 2012-13. The assessee raised various grounds, including challenging the reopening of assessment u/s. 148 without tangible material. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ground Nos. 1 to 3 were not pressed and were dismissed accordingly.

2. Regarding the validity of the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, the Assessing Officer made additions without providing copies of documents or the opportunity to cross-examine. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the purchases were genuine, supported by evidence, and that the disallowance was unjustified.

3. The dispute centered around the adhoc disallowance of purchases from certain parties and the subsequent disallowance of 12.5% on those purchases. The Assessing Officer treated the purchases as non-genuine, leading to the disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance based on the assessee's acceptance during assessment proceedings. The Ld. Counsel contended that the purchases were genuine, as confirmed by the party in question.

4. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in a similar case was cited, emphasizing that voluntarily accepted additions cannot be further challenged. The court held that if an assessee agrees to an addition, they cannot subsequently dispute it. The judgment highlighted the importance of accepting agreed-upon facts in tax assessments.

5. Referring to another High Court judgment, it was reiterated that when an assessee makes a statement of facts agreeing to an addition, they cannot later claim grievance against the taxing authority's decision based on that statement. The judgment emphasized the need for rectification if the statement was made under a mistaken belief, before challenging the assessment through an appeal.

6. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) based on the principle that voluntarily accepted additions cannot be contested later. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to agreed-upon facts in tax assessments to maintain the integrity of the process.