2017 (10) TMI 174 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of alleged bogus sales - proof of genuine claim - Held that - The Sales Tax Department in its enquiry have found the parties to be providing bogus accommodation entries. The assessing officer also issued notices to these parties at the addresses provided by the assessee. All these notices have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to produce any of the parties. Neither the assessee has been able to produce any confirmation from these parties. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that these parties are non-existent. We find it further strange that assessee wants the Revenue to produce assessee s own vendors, whom the assessee could not produce. The purchase bills from these non-existent/bogus parties cannot be taken as cogent evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. In the present case, the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases amounting to ?23,13,873.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases totaling ?23,13,873. The appellant contended that the disallowance should have been based on Gross Profit/Net Profit basis rather than a fixed percentage. The appellant argued that the disallowance should have been restricted to the Net Profit of 0.96% instead of 12.5%. However, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the tax should be levied on the income component, not the entire transaction amount. The CIT(A) referred to previous cases where only the profit element embedded in such purchases was subject to tax, not the entire purchase amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, citing relevant legal precedents.

The assessing officer had made an addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases from five parties, amounting to ?23,13,873, as the notices issued to the parties were returned unserved. The appellant failed to produce the parties personally or confirm the purchases, leading to the purchases being treated as not genuine. The appellant's submissions were not considered, and the purchases were added to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the sale proceeds of the goods had been accounted for in the books and offered for tax. The CIT(A) referred to specific cases where only the profit element from such purchases was taxable, not the entire purchase amount. The appellant's plea to restrict the disallowance to Net Profit was rejected.

The ITAT found that the assessing officer had credible information that the appellant obtained bogus purchase bills from accommodation entry providers. Despite notices being returned unserved and lack of confirmation from the parties, the appellant failed to provide evidence of transportation of goods or the existence of the parties. The Sales Tax Department's inquiry confirmed the parties provided bogus accommodation entries, further supporting the disallowance of the purchases. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on substantial evidence that the suppliers were non-existent and the purchases were bogus. The ITAT also referenced legal precedents supporting the disallowance of 100% of bogus purchases when found to be non-genuine.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal, affirming the order of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. The ITAT found no reason to disturb the decision based on the overwhelming evidence of non-existent suppliers and bogus purchases. The ITAT highlighted the importance of considering the profit element in such transactions and upheld the disallowance based on legal principles and precedents.