9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 8 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases of diamonds - Addition u/s 69C - Held that - AO has placed his reliance fully on the statement given by Shri Hiren Raval and accordingly disallowed entire purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex. We also notice that the AO has also added the sales value of ₹ 10.17 lakhs also. With regard to the addition of ₹ 10.17 lakhs, we agree with the contentions of Ld A.R that the said addition is liable to be deleted, as the assessee itself has already offered the same as its income in the form of sales. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the addition. Disallowance of purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex, Task force committee has recommended profit range of 1.5% to 4.5% for manufacturing activities and profit range of 1% to 3% was recommended for trading activities. The assessee has undertaken both trading and manufacturing activities. Accordingly we are of the view that the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases may be estimated at 3%. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by CIT(A) and direct the AO to sustain the addition to 3% of the value of alleged bogus purchases and in our view, the same would meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of purchases from M/s Zalak Impex. 2. Addition of sales value to the total income. 3. Opportunity to cross-examine Shri Hiren Raval. 4. Estimation of profit element in alleged bogus purchases. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Genuineness of Purchases from M/s Zalak Impex: The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gold/silver jewelry and trading diamonds and colored stones, was found to have purchased diamonds from M/s Zalak Impex. During a survey, it was revealed that M/s Zalak Impex was not conducting genuine business activities and was merely providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment, suspecting the genuineness of purchases amounting to ?201.28 lakhs. The assessee furnished purchase bills and payment details but failed to provide delivery challans, stock registers, or other supporting documents. The AO rejected the reconciliation statement and added the entire purchase amount to the total income, citing various case laws. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 2. Addition of Sales Value to the Total Income: The AO added the sales value of ?10.17 lakhs made to M/s Zalak Impex to the total income. The assessee argued that this addition was unjustified as the sales had already been offered to taxation. The tribunal agreed with the assessee, directing the AO to delete the addition of ?10.17 lakhs. 3. Opportunity to Cross-examine Shri Hiren Raval: The assessee requested to cross-examine Shri Hiren Raval, whose statement was used against the assessee. The AO denied this request, considering it invalid. The tribunal noted that the AO relied entirely on Shri Hiren Raval’s statement, which the assessee claimed was self-serving. The tribunal observed that the AO did not examine the invoices and payment details provided by the assessee and denied the cross-examination opportunity, which was a significant procedural lapse. 4. Estimation of Profit Element in Alleged Bogus Purchases: The tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee reconciled the purchases and sales, it could not conclusively prove that the diamonds were purchased from M/s Zalak Impex. It was inferred that the assessee might have purchased diamonds from undisclosed parties at possibly lower prices. The tribunal referred to the Task Force Committee's recommendations and various tribunal decisions, suggesting a reasonable profit estimation. Considering the assessee's trading and manufacturing activities, the tribunal directed the AO to sustain the addition to 3% of the value of alleged bogus purchases, meeting the ends of justice. Conclusion: The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to delete the sales value addition and sustain the addition to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Stay Application filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous. The order was pronounced on 07.03.2018.
|
