2019 (4) TMI 1878 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - assessee failed to conclusively substantiate the delivery of material - HELD THAT - Notices issued u/s 133(6) to all the suppliers did not elicit satisfactory response. Therefore, in such a situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases, which lower authorities have rightly done. Assessee is dealing in a low margin item like metals which is subjected to lower VAT Rate. Another factor to be noted is that the assessee has reflected a Gross Profit Rate of 3.84% in the impugned AY. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, we reduce the estimated additions to 2% of alleged bogus purchases - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Assessment Year 2011-12 - Alleged bogus purchases - Validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 - Addition of &8377; 72.03 Lacs - Nature of business - Gross profit rate - Reasonableness of estimate - Failure to substantiate delivery of material - Reduction of estimated additions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 challenges the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment was framed by the Ld. Income Tax Officer-9(1)(4), Mumbai, where the income of the assessee was determined at &8377; 114.92 Lacs after additions. The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from Sales Tax Authorities regarding alleged bogus purchases. The assessee, a resident corporate engaged in trading, was directed to substantiate purchase transactions during assessment proceedings.

2. Despite the assessee's submissions of maintaining adequate stock details and making payments through banking channels, discrepancies were found, and responses from suppliers were unsatisfactory. The Ld. AO estimated additions against the purchases, resulting in an addition of &8377; 72.03 Lacs. The assessee contested the reassessment proceedings and quantum additions on legal and merits grounds before the Ld. first appellate authority, without success. The appeal was then brought before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. During the appeal hearing, the Authorized Representative for Assessee argued that the additions were unjustified considering the nature of the business and low gross profit margin. The Ld. DR contended that the lower authorities' estimate was reasonable. The Tribunal considered the submissions, noting the necessity of actual purchases for sales to occur and the failure to conclusively prove delivery of material. While acknowledging the valid profit element in the transactions, the Tribunal reduced the estimated additions to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to &8377; 11,52,629, considering the low margin nature of the business and the declared gross profit rate.

4. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, partly allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order to reduce the estimated additions. The balance addition was deleted, and the appeal was allowed in terms of the revised order. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 12th April 2019.