2016 (6) TMI 1048 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - possible inflation of purchase price - Held that - Assessing Officer s action in treating the purchases as bogus and adding the entire cost of purchases in the assessment ought not to have been restored by the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 1996 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C has been approved. In that view of the matter, keeping in mind the fact that not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax, we find that it shall be appropriate to restrict the disallowance made in this regard to 25% of the cost of such purchases in each year. Thus 25% of the payments made to the parties shall be disallowed on account of possible inflation of purchase price. In view of the above, the question raised in the present appeals is answered partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the authenticity of purchases made by the assessee for different assessment years.

Analysis:
The appellant, a firm trading in oil and grocery items, filed returns for various assessment years, but the Assessing Officer deemed purchases as bogus, leading to additions in income. Appeals to the CIT(A) were partly allowed, but the ITAT upheld the additions. The substantial question of law revolved around the authenticity of purchases totaling different amounts for each year.

The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in deeming purchases as bogus, emphasizing evidence supporting their genuineness. They cited relevant court decisions to support their arguments. Conversely, the respondent supported the ITAT's decision, asserting the correctness of rejecting the CIT(A)'s modifications.

The issue was akin to precedents where the Apex Court and High Court had ruled that only the profit element of such purchases should be added to income, not the entire purchase price if purchases were found to be bogus. The Tribunal's estimation of profit return from bogus purchases was deemed reasonable and varied with business nature.

In light of legal principles, the Tribunal's decision to treat purchases as wholly bogus and add the entire cost to income was deemed incorrect. Following precedents, the disallowance was restricted to 25% of the cost of purchases for each year, balancing in favor of both the assessee and revenue. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the appeals were allowed partially.