2017 (9) TMI 305 - AT - Income Tax

Legality /Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 148 - hawala transactions - bogus purchases - assessee agreed for addition but requested for a fair and reasonable estimate of profits embedded in these purchases - Held that - Assessee has specifically stated that it does not want to challenge the legality and validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 but want quite reasonable and fair addition and hence ground no. 1 stood dismissed as not being pressed. Addition to the tune of 12.5% of the alleged purchases are upheld towards profit embedded in these purchases wherein material was procured from grey market at lower prices while invoices at inflated price was obtained from these alleged bogus dealers, instead of 24.71% (GP of last year) as was upheld/sustained by lower authorities. We direct the A.O. to work out the additions to the income of the assessee at the rate of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases over and above declared income -Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of reopening the assessment under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Rejection of books of accounts under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Allegation of bogus purchases and their impact on the profitability and tax liability.
4. Addition of ?15,08,045/- on account of bogus purchases.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality and Validity of Reopening the Assessment
The assessee did not press the ground challenging the legality and validity of the reopening of the assessment under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not being pressed.

Issue 2: Rejection of Books of Accounts
The AO rejected the books of accounts under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the books did not reflect the true and genuine financial status of the assessee. The AO observed that the assessee had inflated purchases through hawala parties, which were only giving accommodation entries without supplying any material. The CIT(A) upheld this rejection, noting that the assessee failed to produce the parties involved and could not satisfactorily substantiate the genuineness of the purchases.

Issue 3: Allegation of Bogus Purchases
The AO received information from the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, indicating that the assessee had entered into hawala transactions for purchases amounting to ?61,02,974/- from Rajeshwari Metal Industries and Amar Trading Corporation. The AO observed that the TIN status of these parties was canceled, and they were engaged in issuing bogus bills without supplying any material. The AO issued notices under section 133(6) to verify the genuineness of these purchases, but the notices were returned unserved. The assessee could not produce these parties and agreed to the addition proposed by the AO.

Issue 4: Addition of ?15,08,045/- on Account of Bogus Purchases
The AO made an addition of ?15,08,045/- (24.71% of ?61,02,974/-) to the income of the assessee, concluding that the purchases were fictitious. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee argued that the purchases were genuine and submitted various documents, including invoices, delivery challans, ledger accounts, and bank statements, to support its claim. However, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to produce the parties and could not satisfactorily establish the genuineness of the purchases.

The Tribunal considered the factual matrix and concluded that a fair and reasonable estimate of profits embedded in the alleged bogus purchases should be made. It was observed that the assessee had already declared a GP ratio of 24.71%, which included purchases from these alleged bogus parties. The Tribunal held that an addition of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases would be fair and reasonable, taking into account the savings made by the assessee in procuring material from the grey market.

Issue 5: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)
The CIT(A) dismissed the ground regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), noting that the assessee had neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in its order.

Conclusion
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. It upheld the addition to the income of the assessee at the rate of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, instead of 24.71% as sustained by the lower authorities. The ground challenging the legality and validity of the reopening of the assessment was dismissed as not being pressed. The Tribunal directed the AO to work out the additions accordingly.

← Previous Next →