2018 (6) TMI 1183 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of profit element embedded in bogus purchases - Held that - Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT observed that no uniform yardstick could be adopted for estimation of profit on bogus purchases. In case of bogus purchases, only profit element embedded in such purchases needs to be taxed but not total purchases that too, when assessee has filed certain evidence to justify such purchases and also where the AO has not doubted sales declared by the assessee and not pointed out any mistakes in books of account maintained for the financial year. We direct the AO to estimate net profit of 12.5% on total alleged bogus purchases from mentined two parties.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition made on account of purchases from alleged non-genuine suppliers.
3. Levying of interest under Section 234B, 234C, 234D of the Act.

Issue 1: Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The case involved the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 based on information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) formed a reasonable belief of income escapement solely based on third-party information without tangible material. However, the CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating that the information received constituted tangible material for forming a reasonable belief. The Tribunal dismissed the ground against reopening after directing the AO to estimate the profit element in alleged bogus purchases.

Issue 2: Addition made on account of purchases from alleged non-genuine suppliers:
The AO made an addition to the returned income due to purchases made from two firms listed as hawala operators, without evidence to support these transactions. The assessee contended that the AO disregarded evidence, including purchase bills and payment proof, and did not allow cross-examination of the suppliers. The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some basic evidence, further proof was lacking, especially in light of information from the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a net profit of 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases.

Issue 3: Levying of interest under Section 234B, 234C, 234D of the Act:
The AO levied interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act. However, the Tribunal's decision did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by directing the AO to estimate the profit element in alleged bogus purchases and dismissing the ground against the reopening of assessment. The decision highlighted the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support transactions and the need to estimate profits in cases of alleged bogus purchases based on consistent judicial precedents.