9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1053 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases - addition made u/s 69C - profit estimation - Held that - Disallowance were made by the assessee on the plea that the quantitative details were not furnished by the assessee on the plea that the purchases made from nine tainted parties were in fact sold. Admittedly, there cannot be sale without purchases and the G.P. ratio for Financial Year 2008-09 (@ 15.38%), the G.P. of Assessment Year 2007-08 (@ 15.53%) and of Assessment Year 2009-10 (@ 15.59%), clearly indicates that the First Appellate Authority has justifiably, under the facts and the circumstances of the case adopted the disallowance at the rate of 15% of the alleged bogus purchases. Even otherwise, the case of the assessee/Revenue is also covered by the decision from Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.(2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and CIT vs Smit P. Seth (2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). This view of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) will plug the revenue leakage, therefore, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resulting into dismissal of appeal, filed by the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of purchases under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under sections 147/148 of the Act. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment. This decision was not contested further in the detailed analysis, indicating that the reopening was considered valid. 2. Disallowance of Purchases under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of ?6,34,75,252/- made under section 69C of the Act. The Ld. First Appellate Authority had deleted the addition by holding that the purchases from nine parties were genuine, relying on the decision from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Ltd. (2013) 216 taxman 171 (Bom.). The Tribunal considered various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court, including Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.), CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.), CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), and CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.). These decisions established that purchases should not be disallowed merely because the suppliers were not traceable, as long as the purchases were genuine and payments were made through banking channels. 3. Estimation of Profit on Alleged Bogus Purchases: In cases where purchases are considered bogus, the Tribunal and various High Courts have held that only the profit margin embedded in such purchases should be subjected to tax, not the entire purchase amount. The Tribunal referred to several decisions, including CIT vs. Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), which supported the approach of estimating the profit margin. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had adopted a disallowance rate of 15% of the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to ?1,12,01,515/-, which was considered fair and reasonable. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, noting that the Gross Profit (G.P.) ratios for the relevant financial years supported the 15% disallowance rate. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had justifiably adopted the disallowance rate of 15% of the alleged bogus purchases, which would plug revenue leakage. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was affirmed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2017.
|
