2017 (11) TMI 204 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - Held that - As considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our view, the addition u/s 68 cannot be made so far as these liabilities are concerned. Section 68 reads as under - Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of a liability outstanding against purchases claimed to be not genuine but bogus.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the extra profit addition made by the Assessing Officer by applying a different Gross Profit rate.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Income Tax Appeal challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deletion of a liability against purchases claimed to be bogus. The Appellant contended that the purchases were not genuine, and the liability was not verifiable as the sources were untraceable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted the addition, stating that the purchases were part of the real trade practice in Banarasi saree business, and proper records were maintained. The CIT(A) found the assessing authority's addition to be baseless, as the purchases were properly evidenced, and the claim of bogus purchases was unfounded. The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the addition under Section 68 could not be made concerning these liabilities as the issue had been conclusively dealt with.

Issue 2:
The second issue involved the deletion of an extra profit addition by the Assessing Officer. The AO had applied a Gross Profit rate different from what the assessee disclosed, resulting in an additional profit addition. The CIT(A) found the AO's contention unjustified, as the assessee's payment records were properly maintained, and the purchases were made on credit as per the trade practice. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no interference was needed as the issue had been conclusively dealt with, and no question of law arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding both issues, emphasizing the importance of maintaining proper records and evidencing transactions in the assessment of liabilities and profits for income tax purposes.