2019 (10) TMI 1561 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained investment - HELD THAT - AO has issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the purchaser but no response was received, meaning thereby that assessee has taken the bogus entry to evade the tax. Therefore,AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) have rightly held that party from whom the purchases were made by the assessee, were found to be bogus and that is the reason for which it was not produced during the assessment proceedings. Not having doubted the consumption / sales, the motive behind obtaining bogus bills thus, appears to be inflation of purchase price so as to suppress true profits. Assessee has failed to place on record any relevant material/evidence to controvert the well reasoned findings of the revenue authorities. Hence, no infirmity in the findings of the revenue authorities and upheld the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute in sustaining the addition - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening action under section 148.
2. Addition under section 69C for alleged bogus purchases.

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening Action under Section 148:
The appeal challenged the reopening action by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148, contending that it was done in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions. The appellant argued that the proceedings under section 147 were based on surmises and conjectures, lacking independent inquiries by the AO. The appellant claimed that the reopening was without jurisdiction and should be quashed. The grounds also questioned the independent application of mind by the AO and the basis for believing that income had escaped assessment. The appellant sought relief to quash the reopening order for non-fulfillment of prior jurisdictional conditions.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 69C for Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The appellant disputed the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 under section 69C for disallowing alleged bogus purchases. Various arguments were presented challenging the decision of the CIT(A) and the AO. The appellant contended that the provisions of section 69C were invoked incorrectly, emphasizing that the source of expenditure was duly reflected in the books of accounts. The appellant also highlighted the documentary evidence provided to support the genuineness of the purchases. Moreover, it was argued that the addition was made solely based on a statement recorded during a survey under section 133A, which was deemed to lack evidentiary value. The appellant further criticized the authorities for ignoring essential documents like sales bills, ledger accounts, and tax returns. Additionally, the appellant argued against the absence of documentary evidence proving that the amount had been recycled back to the appellant in cash. The appellant also raised concerns about the reliance on irrelevant judgments by the CIT(A). Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 under section 69C, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to counter the findings of the revenue authorities regarding the bogus nature of the purchases.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides insights into the issues raised by the appellant, the arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.