2017 (10) TMI 820 - AT - Income Tax

Genuinity of purchase transactions - issuance of bogus bills by Hawala Operators - addition u/s 69C of the Act - Held that - the parties are listed as hawala operators in the list prepared by Maharashtra Sales-tax department. The parties have filed affidavit before Maharashtra Sales-tax authorities wherein they have admitted that they have not done any business, but only issued bogus purchase bills. All these facts clearly prove the fact that the above two parties are involved in providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. Under these circumstances, purchases from these parties cannot be considered as genuine. What needs to be taxed is only the profit element embedded in such purchases and not the total purchases from the parties - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of purchases from parties listed as hawala operators by the Sales-tax department. Justification of purchases based on third-party information. Dispute over the genuineness of purchases. Addition made under section 69C of the Act. Appeal before CIT(A) and subsequent direction to estimate net profit on total purchases.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai concerned the assessment of purchases made by an individual engaged in trading in LDO and furnace oil from parties listed as hawala operators by the Sales-tax department. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised concerns about the genuineness of these purchases totaling &8377; 1,99,87,304, based on information suggesting the parties issued bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. Despite the assessee providing necessary details and justifications, the AO concluded the purchases were not genuine and made additions under section 69C of the Act.

Upon appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated their submissions, emphasizing that the purchases were supported by proper bills and vouchers, with payments made through legitimate banking channels. The CIT(A), considering the submissions and judicial precedents, directed the AO to estimate net profit at 25% of the total purchases from the parties in question. The revenue, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal.

During the Tribunal proceedings, it was noted that the parties in question had admitted to providing accommodation entries without actual goods delivery, as confirmed by affidavits filed before the Sales-tax authorities. However, the assessee had provided evidence to support the genuineness of the purchases, including bills and payment proofs. The Tribunal observed that since no adverse comments were made on the books of account or stock registers, the purchases could not be entirely disallowed solely based on unserved notices.

Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal determined that only the profit element embedded in the purchases should be taxed, not the total amount. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 12.5% on the total bogus purchases from the parties, ultimately dismissing the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the evidence provided by the assessee in justifying purchases, emphasizing the need to tax only the profit element in such transactions rather than the entire amount, in line with previous judicial interpretations.