2016 (8) TMI 1594 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69C - peak cash credit in respect of alleged bogus purchases - HELD THAT - AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the said suppliers which were not replied and when the assessee was confronted with the said fact it was submitted that they had shifted their business locations. AO received information from the Sales Tax Department qua the above suppliers being suspicious dealers. We find merit in the arguments of the ld. AR that sources of purchases of material were not in dispute. The assessee has made purchases from these suppliers and duly made payments to the said suppliers and therefore the payments were duly reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee and therefore the provisions of section 69C of the Act cannot be invoked A plain perusal of the provisions of section 69C reveals that where the assessee has incurred any expenditure and the sources whereof could not be explained before the AO or AO is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee only then provisions of section 69C could be invoked and not otherwise. In our view the order of CIT(A) upholding the application of provision of section 69C of the Act was wrong as the source of payment was not doubted or disputed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Single issue raised in the appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 2,48,344 under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to alleged bogus purchases from two suppliers.

Analysis:

1. Addition under Section 69C:
The case involved an appeal against the addition of Rs. 2,48,344 under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning alleged bogus purchases from two suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition as unexplained expenditure towards purchases from Paras Sales Corporation and Rashmi Enterprises. The AO framed the assessment under section 143(3) based on this addition. The appellant contested this addition before the CIT(A), arguing that the purchases were genuine. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to establish the authenticity of the purchases from the mentioned suppliers. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision based on the lack of evidence provided by the appellant regarding the purchases.

2. Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the sources of the purchases were not in dispute. The appellant had made payments to the suppliers, reflecting these transactions in the books of accounts. The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued notices to the suppliers under section 133(6) but received no response. Additionally, information from the Sales Tax Department indicated that the suppliers were considered suspicious dealers. The Tribunal emphasized that section 69C could only be invoked when the source of expenditure remained unexplained or unsatisfactory to the AO. In this case, since the source of payment was not doubted or disputed, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the application of section 69C was incorrect. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,48,344.

3. Final Verdict:
Conclusively, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the decision of the CIT(A) and directing the deletion of the addition under section 69C. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 12th August 2016.