2018 (5) TMI 2065 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - non rejection of books of accounts - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the AO has issued notice u/s 133(6) to four parties which were returned by the postal authorities as unserved . Then he mentions that the appellant has made purchases from unrecognized parties. The estimation of profit by the AO @ 12.5% on the above amount is devoid of any substance. There is no basis for estimating income without rejecting the books of accounts. The ratio laid down in the decision in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT is squarely applicable in the instant case. Respectfully following the same, we delete the disallowance made by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of addition to total income by the CIT(A)
- Treatment of purchases from unregistered dealers
- Non-appearance of parties in response to summons
- Reconciliation of quantity in opening balance
- Consideration of payment method and quantity reconciliation

Disallowance of Addition to Total Income by the CIT(A):
The appeal involved the disallowance of an addition to the total income by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], amounting to ?28,30,051. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, which was challenged by the assessee. The grounds of appeal included contentions regarding the appreciation of facts, treatment of unregistered dealers, non-appearance of parties in response to summons, and the reconciliation of quantity in opening balance. The CIT(A's decision was based on the Assessing Officer's findings, leading to the appeal before the ITAT Mumbai.

Treatment of Purchases from Unregistered Dealers:
The case involved the assessment of purchases made by the assessee from unregistered dealers, totaling ?2,26,40,410. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 133(6) to the parties, but they were returned unserved. The AO made a disallowance of 12.5% on the total purchases, resulting in the contested addition to the total income. The appellant argued that payments were made by cheques and provided ledger confirmations, purchase bills, bank statements, and quantitative tally to support the legitimacy of the transactions. The ITAT Mumbai found the AO's estimation of profit without rejecting the books of accounts to be unsubstantiated.

Non-Appearance of Parties in Response to Summons:
The issue of non-appearance of parties in response to summons sent by the AO under section 133(6) was raised during the proceedings. The returned notices led to a lack of verification from the concerned parties regarding the purchases made by the assessee. The appellant denied being asked to produce the parties and emphasized providing necessary details to the AO, including names, addresses, and PANs of the suppliers, along with quantitative records showing material reconciliation.

Reconciliation of Quantity in Opening Balance:
The appellant, a trader of diamonds, gold, and silver, faced scrutiny regarding the reconciliation of quantity in opening balance, purchases, sales, and closing quantity. The AO raised concerns about purchases from specific parties and the legitimacy of transactions, leading to the disallowance under contention. The appellant submitted detailed records and explanations to support the authenticity of the transactions, highlighting the nature of sourcing goods from registered and unregistered dealers.

Consideration of Payment Method and Quantity Reconciliation:
The ITAT Mumbai considered the appellant's submissions, which included ledger confirmations, purchase bills, bank statements, and quantitative tally to demonstrate the legitimacy of transactions. The appellant's argument focused on the reasonableness of the gross profit margin, challenging the AO's estimation without sufficient basis. Citing precedents and relevant case law, the ITAT Mumbai found in favor of the appellant, deleting the disallowance of ?28,30,051. The decision emphasized the importance of substantiated assessments and adherence to legal principles in income tax proceedings.