2016 (7) TMI 686 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchase - Held that - Though purchases were from bogus parties nevertheless purchases themselves were not bogus. In our opinion, there is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in the absence of the purchases, there could not be sales worth ₹ 4,03,34,375. Not only this, the Assessing Officer has also accepted the opening and closing stock as shown by the assessee in the books of account. The Assessing Officer has not doubted these sales. If the Assessing Officer s version is accepted then the gross profit works out at 83 per cent. which is unbelievable and unimaginary as sales cannot be the profits. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any justification in making the addition on account of bogus purchases. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?3,07,95,467 on account of bogus purchases.
2. Justification for disallowing purchases when sales were accepted.
3. Impact of disallowing purchases on gross profit rate.
4. Assessing Officer exceeding jurisdiction under the scrutiny through CASS selection (dismissed as not pressed).

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?3,07,95,467 on account of bogus purchases:
The assessee filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Panchkula, confirming the addition of ?3,07,95,467 for bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) conducted field inquiries and concluded that the parties from whom purchases were made did not exist, leading to the addition of ?3,07,95,467 to the assessee's total income. The assessee argued that purchases were made through brokers, which is a common practice in their line of business, and payments were made after delivery of goods. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the addition and relied on precedents where disallowance of purchases was not upheld due to lack of substantial evidence.

2. Justification for disallowing purchases when sales were accepted:
The assessee contended that if purchases were disallowed, corresponding sales should also be decreased, resulting in no effect on the gross profit. The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the sales and the resultant profit, which implies that the purchases were genuine. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab P. Ltd., where it was held that purchases might be from bogus parties, but the purchases themselves were not bogus. Thus, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.

3. Impact of disallowing purchases on gross profit rate:
The assessee highlighted that disallowing the purchases would result in an unrealistic gross profit rate of 83%, which is not feasible in their business. The Tribunal agreed, stating that such a high gross profit rate is unbelievable and unimaginary. The Tribunal referred to the case of Piyush Developers P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, where the gross profit margin would have jumped to 68% if purchases were disallowed, which was deemed abnormal for that line of business. The Tribunal concluded that disallowing the purchases would distort the trading results and is not justified.

4. Assessing Officer exceeding jurisdiction under the scrutiny through CASS selection:
The assessee did not press for this ground during the hearing, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no justification in making the addition of ?3,07,95,467 on account of bogus purchases. The AO's version would result in an unrealistic gross profit rate, and the purchases were deemed genuine as the sales were accepted. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was deleted. The order was pronounced in the open court on May 2, 2016.

← Previous Next →