2018 (12) TMI 1861 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT - AO had specific information in his possession to indicate that certain purchases made by the assessee in the impugned assessment years are not genuine. It is also evident, the assessee could not conclusively prove that the purchases claimed to have been made from the declared source are genuine. However, the departmental authorities have not disputed the sales effected by the assessee, meaning thereby, the assessee might have purchased the goods from some unknown parties/source. For this reason alone the assessing officer has estimated the profit at 12.5% of the non genuine purchases. Therefore, the dispute now is only with regard to the profit rate to be applied for estimating the income on non genuine purchases. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of this particular case we are of the considered opinion that estimation of profit @ 5% of the alleged non genuine purchases would be reasonable. We direct the assessing officer to restrict the addition in both the Assessment Years under appeal to 5% of the non genuine purchases. We make it clear, our aforesaid decision is purely on the basis of facts involved in the present appeals.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 04.01.2018 for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
- Addition made on account of bogus purchases is the common issue in both appeals.

Analysis:
1. Background:
The appellant, engaged in trading ferrous and nonferrous metals, filed returns for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessing officer reopened assessments based on information indicating purchases from hawala operators. The officer estimated profits at 12.5% of bogus purchases, resulting in additions to the total income.

2. Assessment Proceedings:
The appellant failed to provide conclusive evidence of the genuineness of purchases, as delivery documents were missing, and parties were unavailable. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessing officer's additions.

3. Arguments:
The Authorized Representative argued that a 12.5% profit rate on alleged bogus purchases was excessive for a metal trading business. Industry norms suggested profit rates of 2 to 3%, advocating for a reasonable estimation.

4. Decision:
After reviewing submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found the assessing officer's estimation excessive. Not disputing the sales, it directed the profit estimation at 5% of non-genuine purchases, considering the circumstances. The decision was based on the specific facts of the case, allowing the appeals in part.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, reducing the additions by directing the assessing officer to limit them to 5% of non-genuine purchases. The decision was made based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing reasonableness in profit estimation for the metal trading business.

This judgment highlights the importance of substantiating transactions and the reasonableness of profit estimations in cases involving alleged bogus purchases, providing clarity on the approach to be taken by assessing officers and appellate authorities in such matters.