2017 (12) TMI 1254 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - ingenuity of claim - Held that - In the present case it is noticed that the AO doubted the purchases made by the assessee from M/s Parshanath Enterprises only on the basis of statement of one Sh. Mukesh Mangla. However it is not brought on record in which capacity Sh. Mukesh Mangla has given statement when Sh. Sachin Jain was the proprietor of M/s Parshanath Enterprises. The assessee furnished the copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books of M/s Parshanath Enterprises and also filed confirmation as well as its bank account alongwith copy of ITR of the proprietor of M/s Parshanath Enterprises. The AO did not make any inquiry from the proprietor of M/s Parshanath Enterprises. It is also not in dispute that the sales made by the assessee from the purchases under consideration and the gross profit rate has been accepted then there was no reason to consider the purchases as bogus purchases. In that view of the matter the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A)is deleted. Addition on account of commission on bogus purchases u/s 69C - Held that - Since the addition made by the AO considering the purchase as bogus has been deleted in the former part of this order. Therefore the impugned addition is also deleted being co- related with the said purchases. Addition on account of capital introduced by Sh. Rishi Sachdeva the partner in the assessee firm - Held that - The amount in question was deposited by the partner as his capital therefore even if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee it cannot be added in the hands of the assessee firm. At the most it cannot be considered in the hands of the individual partner of the assessee firm.Therefore considering the totality of the facts as discussed herein above am of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital contributed by the partner in the assessee firm. Assessee appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment order and adherence to the principle of natural justice.
2. Confirmation of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases.
3. Addition of commission on alleged bogus purchases under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
4. Addition on account of capital introduced by a partner.
5. Charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Assessment Order and Adherence to the Principle of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the assessment order was illegal and violated the principle of natural justice. However, this ground was considered general and did not require specific comments from the Tribunal.

2. Confirmation of Addition on Account of Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The primary grievance was the confirmation of an addition of ?36,23,600/- by treating purchases from M/s Parshanath Enterprises as bogus. The Assessing Officer (AO) based this addition on the statement of Sh. Mukesh Mangla, who claimed that M/s Parshanath Enterprises was only involved in paper transactions and had not made any real sales to the assessee. The AO observed discrepancies in the purchases and sales records and concluded that the purchases were bogus. The assessee contended that the AO did not provide an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Mukesh Mangla and submitted various documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not make inquiries from the proprietor of M/s Parshanath Enterprises and relied solely on the statement of Sh. Mukesh Mangla without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the gross profit rate was consistent and the sales were accepted, thus there was no reason to treat the purchases as bogus. Consequently, the addition of ?36,23,600/- was deleted.

3. Addition of Commission on Alleged Bogus Purchases Under Section 69C:
The AO also added ?54,898/- as commission on the alleged bogus purchases under Section 69C. Since the Tribunal deleted the addition of ?36,23,600/- for bogus purchases, the related commission addition was also deleted.

4. Addition on Account of Capital Introduced by a Partner:
The AO added ?4,25,000/- on account of capital introduced by Sh. Rishi Sachdeva, a partner in the assessee firm, citing failure to substantiate the source of cash. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal, however, noted that the identity of the partner was not in dispute and the assessee had provided relevant documents, including the partner's income tax returns and statement of affairs. The Tribunal held that any unexplained investment should be assessed in the hands of the partner, not the firm. Thus, the addition of ?4,25,000/- was deleted.

5. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234D:
This issue was not specifically addressed in the detailed analysis, likely because it was consequential to the main issues discussed above.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases, related commission, and capital introduced by a partner. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for cross-examination and the necessity of corroborative evidence to support additions made by the AO. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in court on 20/12/2017.

← Previous Next →