2017 (3) TMI 527 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases addition - revision u/s 263 - cash payments - Held that - As payments are made in cash, the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(Appeals) have rightly suspected the genuineness of the same. The assessee has not been able to lead any third party evidence in support of its claim. The only valid argument is that there could be no sales without purchases. But the price at which the goods were purchased remained a grey colour when admittedly the payment was made in cash. As the undisputed fact that the payments were made in cash under section 40A(3) is attracted as pointed out by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order passed under section 263 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it of the view that section 40A(3) has to be applied and the disallowance restricted to this amount. - Decided partly in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act regarding purchases from M/s AP TRADERS.
2. Revision of original assessment order under section 263 of the Act.
3. Treatment of purchases as bogus and its impact on sales and closing stock.
4. Allegation of assessment being based on irrelevant considerations.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act regarding purchases from M/s AP TRADERS. The Assessing Officer added an amount towards bogus purchases from M/s. Apex Traders, alleging it to be a non-existing party. The assessee contended that relevant documents were provided, including a registration certificate and bills from M/s. Apex Traders. However, discrepancies arose regarding the mode of payment and the inability to locate M/s. Apex Traders, leading to suspicions of the purchases' genuineness.

Issue 2:
The revision of the original assessment order under section 263 of the Act was based on the Assessing Officer's direction to re-examine the genuineness and creditability of M/s. Apex Traders. The order under section 263 highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the payments made to M/s. Apex Traders, ultimately resulting in the fresh assessment order with significant additions towards bogus purchases. The appellate authority confirmed the addition, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 3:
The treatment of purchases as bogus raised concerns regarding their impact on sales and closing stock. The Assessing Officer emphasized the non-availability of M/s. Apex Traders, discrepancies in payment methods, and the failure to produce conclusive evidence of the party's existence. The assessee argued that all possible evidence within their possession was presented to demonstrate the purchases' genuineness, supported by audit reports and sales tax department acceptance.

Issue 4:
The allegation of the assessment being based on irrelevant considerations was refuted by the assessee, emphasizing the maintenance of proper accounts, audited reports, and compliance with tax regulations. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties, noting the discrepancies in payment methods and the inability to verify the existence of M/s. Apex Traders. Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, applying section 40A(3) to restrict the disallowance amount, considering the cash payments made.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of substantiating transactions with concrete evidence and complying with tax regulations to avoid disputes regarding the genuineness of purchases and payments.