9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1256 - AT - Income TaxAddition of bogus purchases and sales promotion expenses - CIT(A) in restricting disallowance of made out sales promotion expenses to 10%, as against the disallowance made by AO @ 100% - Held that - CIT(A) noticed that the AO did not give any reasoning for disallowing expenses at different rates. Accordingly he restricted the disallowance made out of Sales promotion expenses also at uniform rate of 10% in all the three years under consideration. We notice that the learned CIT(A) has taken this view upon noticing that the Assessing Officer has not furnished any credible reason for disallowing Sales promotion expenses @ 100%, while making disallowance out of advertisement and transport expenses @ 10%. Before us, the revenue could not furnish any valid reason for adopting different standards for making disallowance out of expenses, when the underlying facts are identical in all the cases. Hence we are of the view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue also does not call for any interference in all three years under consideration. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition related to bogus purchases. 2. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition Related to Bogus Purchases: The Revenue contested the decision of the learned CIT(A) for not fully sustaining the addition related to bogus purchases made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee, engaged in trading electric and hardware materials, was found to have purchased goods from suspicious dealers identified by the Sales Tax Department as issuing accommodation bills without actual supply. The AO reopened assessments for the years 2009-10 to 2011-12, disallowing the entire purchase amounts as bogus due to the inability of the assessee to produce confirmation letters or suppliers. The learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchase value, observing that the assessee provided purchase bills and payment details but failed to produce transport bills, delivery challans, and octroi payments. The CIT(A) noted that the AO's inquiries confirmed the non-existence of business activities at the suppliers' addresses. However, considering the practical net profit rates in the assessee's line of business, the CIT(A) concluded that the entire purchase amount could not be disallowed, inferring that the assessee might have sourced materials from other sources, thus saving on sales tax/VAT and inflating purchases. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, which held that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed. Consequently, the CIT(A) sustained an addition of 12.5% of the unproved purchase amounts for the years under consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's declared GP ratio of around 4% and NP ratio of less than 1% indicated that disallowing the entire purchase amount would result in an unreasonable NP ratio. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the addition to 12.5% fair and did not warrant interference. 2. Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses: The Revenue also challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of sales promotion expenses to 10%, compared to the AO's 100% disallowance. The AO disallowed 100% of sales promotion expenses and 10% of advertisement and transport expenses due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence. The CIT(A) found the AO's reasoning for different disallowance rates unsubstantiated and applied a uniform 10% disallowance for sales promotion expenses across the three years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view, noting the lack of valid reasoning from the Revenue for adopting different disallowance standards. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A)'s uniform approach was appropriate and did not require interference. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The order was pronounced in court on 09.10.2017.
|
