9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1218 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Bogus purchases - PCIT s revision directions that bogus purchase have to be disallowed @ 25% that @ 5% as per regular assessment in question - CIT-DR vehemently supported the PCIT s action that the impugned disallowance has to be made @ 25% than @ 5% going by the his foregoing reasoning - HELD THAT - We find no merit in Revenue s instant argument. Case law quoted at the Revenue s behest deals with bogus purchases whereas we are dealing with an instance of alleged inflated purchases between group concerns for the purpose and reducing gross profit rate. There is further no quarrel assessee s sale purchase figures between the group concern have been accepted per se since the AO proceeded to disallow an estimated 5% inflated amount only. We conclude in this factual backdrop that the PCIT has erred in law and on facts in holding the AO s regular assessment to this effect as an instance of outright bogus than inflated purchases. We according go by following settled legal proposition to hold that PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming his sec. 263 revision jurisdiction - The same stands reversed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment order deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to inflated purchases. 2. Challenge against the ad hoc disallowance of purchases. 3. Proper application of legal principles in determining the nature of purchases. Issue 1: Assessment Order Deemed Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of Revenue Due to Inflated Purchases: The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2013-14 against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Kolkata. The PCIT found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to inflated purchases. The AO had observed that the assessee's purchases were inflated without further verification of their genuineness. The PCIT issued a notice to the assessee under section 263 to explain the discrepancies. The assessee's representative argued against the ad hoc disallowance of purchases, emphasizing that all relevant documents were produced during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT's revision directions cited case law requiring disallowance of bogus purchases at 25%, whereas the AO had disallowed only 5% of the expenditure. The Tribunal noted the settled legal proposition that both conditions of an assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue must be met simultaneously. It was concluded that the PCIT erred in assuming revision jurisdiction based on inflated purchases without proper verification. Issue 2: Challenge Against the Ad Hoc Disallowance of Purchases: The assessee's representative contested the ad hoc disallowance of purchases, arguing that all necessary documents were submitted during the assessment. The representative referred to various case laws to support the plea against the ad hoc disallowance. The Tribunal clarified that the proceeding under section 263 was not initiated for ad hoc disallowance without evidence but due to the lack of enquiry by the AO regarding the inflated purchases. The AO was directed to conduct necessary enquiries and verifications to determine the genuineness of purchases and make appropriate disallowances if required, following legal precedents. Issue 3: Proper Application of Legal Principles in Determining the Nature of Purchases: The Tribunal analyzed the facts of the case where the AO had disallowed 5% of the expenditure due to alleged inflated purchases between group concerns. The PCIT argued for a higher disallowance rate based on the assumption of outright bogus purchases. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument, emphasizing that the case involved alleged inflated purchases, not bogus ones. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT had erred in holding the assessment as a case of outright bogus purchases and reversed the decision. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in favor of the assessee on 22/01/2020. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in addressing each of them comprehensively.
|
