2017 (9) TMI 648 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus Purchases - profit estimation with respect to the alleged unproved purchases - Held that - Though the CIT(A) has referred to the estimation of profit ranging from 12.50% to 25%, so however, he has not given any particular reason as to why he has resorted to the estimation @17.50%. On the contrary, in similar situations, the Mumbai benches of the Tribunal have estimated the profit @ 12.50% in the case of similarly placed asessees engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Therefore, in my view, in the fitness of things, the estimation of 17.50% adopted by the CIT(A) deserves to be reduced to 12.50%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the addition considering the estimation of profit at 12.50% on the purchases made from the impugned parties, of course, after reducing the 5% G.P, as directed by the CIT(A). Thus, on this aspect, assessee partly succeeds.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of &8377; 35,25,867/- for Assessment Year 2010-11 as "Bogus Purchases".

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the assessee pertains to the assessment year 2010-11 and challenges the addition of &8377; 35,25,867/- for purchases considered as "Bogus Purchases." The Assessing Officer treated purchases from three parties as bogus based on information from the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra, leading to an unexplained expenditure assessment under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) acknowledged the Assessing Officer's stance but noted the appellant's genuine sales to Government Departments. The CIT(A) referred to relevant judgments and concluded that additions should be based on suppression of true profits due to bogus purchase bills. The CIT(A) estimated a profit of 17.50% from the impugned purchases, considering the appellant's historical Gross Profit ratios. The Tribunal was approached as the appellant contested the CIT(A)'s decision.

The appellant's arguments primarily focused on challenging the profit estimation by the CIT(A). They highlighted the insignificance of the alleged bogus purchases compared to total transactions and emphasized the acceptance of lower profits on similar sales to Government Departments. The appellant contended that the 17.50% profit estimation was unjustified given the circumstances. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative supported the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal noted the key dispute regarding the profit estimation by the CIT(A) for the unproved purchases. While the CIT(A) referenced profit estimations ranging from 12.50% to 25%, no specific rationale was provided for choosing 17.50%. Citing precedents, the Tribunal found that similar cases warranted a 12.50% profit estimation. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the addition at 12.50% profit on the impugned purchases, after adjusting the 5% Gross Profit as per the CIT(A)'s directive. The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal reducing the profit estimation from 17.50% to 12.50%.