2018 (4) TMI 1910 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of suppressed scrap sales - Addition made on the basis of material found during the course of survey u/s 133A - Whether no evidence was given by the assessee to prove the market rate of that period? - HELD THAT - In the absence of any evidence of scrap generation having been sold out of the books at higher rates we hold that there is no justification on the part of the AO in making an addition on imaginative basis. - Decided in favour of assessee. Bogus payment of commission - HELD THAT - Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances for the assessment year under consideration we affirm the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) who had rightly deleted the additions by following the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000 2011 (9) TMI 1228 - ITAT JAIPUR - no substantial question of law arises.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suppressed scrap sales.
2. Inflated purchases.
3. Bogus payment of commission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppressed Scrap Sales:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of suppressed scrap sales by examining the findings of the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition of ?60,70,056 made by the AO. The AO based the addition on loose papers found during a survey under Section 133A, which indicated that scrap was sold at a higher rate than recorded. The CIT(A) noted that the AO extrapolated figures from these papers, which pertained to different assessment years (2004-05 and 2005-06), and no additional evidence was provided to substantiate the suppression for the year in question. The CIT(A) concluded that the addition was unjustified due to the lack of concrete evidence and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

2. Inflated Purchases:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of inflated purchases by reviewing the detailed observations of the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition of ?79,82,382 made by the AO. The AO had claimed that purchase bills from certain parties lacked necessary documentation, such as sales tax stamps and weighment slips. The CIT(A) observed that similar issues had been previously adjudicated in favor of the assessee for earlier assessment years, where purchases from the same parties were accepted as genuine by the ITAT. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide new evidence to prove the purchases were inflated or bogus. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO failed to disprove the authenticity of the purchases and upheld the deletion of the addition.

3. Bogus Payment of Commission:
The Tribunal examined the issue of bogus payment of commission, where the AO had disallowed ?1,23,879 claimed by the assessee as commission payments on scrap sales. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, referencing the ITAT's earlier decision for the assessment year 1999-2000, which had accepted similar commission payments as genuine. The CIT(A) found no new adverse material presented by the AO to justify the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decisions on all three issues, rejecting the revenue's grounds for appeal. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising from the case and dismissed the appeal.