2017 (7) TMI 101 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - GP determination - AO made the disallowance @18% whereas Ld. CIT(A) has reduced it to 12.5%. - Held that - The assessee has been able to show that purchases made have been sold and sales have been accepted. But when the need arose for confirmation of the transaction, it is noted from the facts of this case that assessee was not able to confirm the transaction beyond doubt. Therefore, even if it is proved that purchases have been made, but the correctness of the amount at which these purchases have been shown is not fully substantiated. Taking all the rate of disallowance adopted by Ld.CIT(A) @12.5% should be reduced to 8%. The AO is directed to grant relief accordingly. We may clarify that this rate has been adopted after taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and, therefore, should not be taken as a precedent in any other case as any yardstick. With these directions, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of profit element and reduction of GP declared in the assessment year
- Rejection of books of account and confirmation of the rejection by CIT(A)

Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Profit Element and Reduction of GP:
The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the profit element at 12.5% and reducing the GP declared in the assessment year. The AO noted purchases from five parties identified as bogus suppliers by the sales-tax department. The AO initiated re-assessment proceedings, asking the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases. Despite the assessee claiming purchases were genuine due to payments made by cheque, the AO was not satisfied as confirmations were not filed, and parties were not produced for examination. The AO observed that the purchases were not genuine based on various reasons, including findings from the Sales Tax Department and lack of convincing explanations from the assessee.

2. Rejection of Books of Account and Confirmation by CIT(A):
The AO rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act, making an ad-hoc disallowance out of total bogus purchases. The CIT(A) held that since goods purchased were shown to be sold, the total purchase transaction could not be deemed bogus. However, as the transaction was not substantiated beyond doubt, purchases had to be allowed at the correct amount. The CIT(A) estimated the gross profit on the alleged bogus purchase at 12.5%. During the appeal hearing, the counsel argued against the addition sustained by the CIT(A), emphasizing the lack of proof of the purchase transaction being bogus. The Tribunal reviewed the orders and reduced the disallowance rate to 8% after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance rate to 8% based on the specific circumstances of the case. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiating purchase transactions and the need for proper documentation and evidence to support claims. The judgment serves as a reminder of the burden of proof on the assessee in establishing the genuineness of transactions, especially in cases involving suspected bogus suppliers.