2016 (12) TMI 493 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchases - Held that - A.O. had given sufficient opportunity to produce the parties during assessment proceedings but the assessee failed to discharge his onus. The primary onus is on the assessee to provide cogent evidences/explanations that these were genuine transactions for the purchase of spare parts which are used for the business of the assessee. The Revenue has doubted the genuineness / bonafide of the purchase transactions which are alleged to be accommodation entries/ bogus purchases. The onus is on the assessee to justify the consumption of the spare parts for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The assessee did not file any evidence to prove that these were genuine purchase transactions undertaken by the assessee. Thus the Revenue has rightly imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which we hereby confirm - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the disallowed purchases.
2. Justification for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Assessee's inability to produce evidence or witnesses.
4. The impact of the Sales Tax Department's findings on the case.
5. The assessee's claim of surrendering the amount to avoid litigation.

Detailed Analysis:

Legitimacy of the Disallowed Purchases:
The core issue revolves around the disallowance of ?25,98,278/- claimed by the assessee for purchases of spare parts from three parties: M/s Arihant Traders, M/s Adinath Trading Co., and M/s Harsh Corporation. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these purchases, labeling them as bogus based on information from the Sales Tax Department, which identified these suppliers as hawala dealers issuing fake invoices without actual delivery of goods. The AO's investigation, including issuing notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, returned unserved, reinforcing the suspicion of non-genuine transactions.

Justification for the Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The AO imposed a penalty of ?8,02,868/- under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee's failure to provide evidence or produce the suppliers led to the conclusion that the purchases were not genuine. The CIT(A) upheld this penalty, emphasizing the assessee's inability to substantiate the legitimacy of the transactions and the absence of any appeal against the quantum addition, which indicated acceptance of the disallowance.

Assessee's Inability to Produce Evidence or Witnesses:
The assessee argued that the suppliers were not directly known and were engaged through brokers, making it impossible to produce them for cross-examination. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence, such as transportation details or receipts, to validate the purchases. The tribunal noted that the primary onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions rested on the assessee, which was not discharged satisfactorily.

Impact of the Sales Tax Department's Findings:
The findings from the Sales Tax Department played a crucial role in the AO's decision. The department's identification of the suppliers as hawala dealers provided a substantial basis for disallowing the purchases. The tribunal observed that the information from the Sales Tax Authorities, corroborated by the assessee's inability to trace the suppliers, justified the AO's action.

Assessee's Claim of Surrendering the Amount to Avoid Litigation:
The assessee contended that the amount was surrendered to avoid protracted litigation and buy peace, not as an admission of guilt. However, the tribunal highlighted that this surrender and the lack of an appeal against the quantum addition indicated acceptance of the disallowance. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT and Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT, supporting the imposition of penalty in such circumstances.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), as the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to refute the allegations of bogus purchases. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of transactions, especially when faced with substantial evidence of irregularities. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining proper documentation and transparency in financial dealings to avoid such penalties.

← Previous Next →