2016 (7) TMI 912 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of unverifiable purchases - Held that - Assessing Officer has disallowed 10% of the purchases on an ad-hoc basis, whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has deemed it proper to reduce the disallowance to 2% after considering the gross profit rate and net profit rate. In either case, the disallowance is based on an estimate. While there is no basis for the estimate adopted by the Assessing Officer, there is some basis in the estimate adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal whereby it has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of unverifiable purchases - reduction from 10% to 2%
2. Justification of disallowance percentage based on gross profit rate and net profit rate

Analysis:
1. The case involves appeals arising from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of unverifiable purchases by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the purchase amount for two assessment years, which the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced to 2% based on improved gross profit and net profit rates in the current year compared to the previous year. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the revenue challenging the order.

2. The Assessing Officer found the purchases unverifiable as the parties were not produced, leading to a belief that the actual purchase price might be lower. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the higher gross profit and net profit rates in the current year, especially in the garments division, to justify reducing the disallowance to 2% for both assessment years. The Tribunal supported this decision, emphasizing the lack of a specific basis for the 10% disallowance by the Assessing Officer.

3. The key issue revolves around the justification for the disallowance percentage. The Assessing Officer's ad-hoc 10% disallowance lacked a specific basis, while the Commissioner (Appeals) provided a reasoned approach based on improved profit rates. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the reduction to 2% was deemed reasonable, considering the higher profits in the current year. The reliance on a previous court decision was dismissed as inapplicable due to differing circumstances.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the Commissioner's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeals due to the absence of any substantial question of law. The case highlights the importance of justifying disallowance percentages based on factual and reasonable grounds, such as profit rates, to ensure a fair assessment of unverifiable purchases.