2017 (9) TMI 568 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of unexplained expenses/ bogus purchases @ 30% - N.P. determination - Held that - As we have already noticed that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) examined the G.P. ratio or N.P. ratio of assessee for earlier year and in subsequent year. Thus, after considering the facts of the present case, rival submissions of ld. representative of the parties, we are of the opinion that in order to fill up the gap of revenue leakage, the disallowance of 12.5% of impugned purchases would meet the end of justice. Thus, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance @ 12.5% of total purchases impugned/bogus/disputed purchases from these two parties. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Disallowance of unexplained expenses/bogus purchases at 30%.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act
The appeal was directed against orders of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. The assessment was reopened based on information regarding alleged Hawala transactions for material purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 100% of purchases, leading to an addition in the total income. The Ld. CIT(A) partly sustained the disallowance. The first ground of appeal related to the reopening of the assessment, which the Ld. AR did not argue against, resulting in its dismissal.

Issue 2: Disallowance of unexplained expenses/bogus purchases at 30%
The AO disallowed the entire purchases from alleged Hawala dealers without substantial basis, based on information from the Sales Tax Department and DGIT(Inv.). The assessee provided evidence of genuine purchases, including delivery challans, bills, and payment through cheques. The Ld. CIT(A) partly sustained the disallowance, citing estimation basis. However, the G.P. or N.P. ratio was not considered. The Tribunal observed that only the taxable income component should be taxed, not the entire transaction. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal directed a 12.5% disallowance of the disputed purchases to address revenue leakage, allowing the appeal partially.

The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance revenue interests and fairness, emphasizing the importance of verifying transactions and taxing only the actual income component. The judgment provided clarity on the treatment of unexplained expenses and bogus purchases, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.