2018 (7) TMI 1085 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market - Held that - Addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases, which Ld. CIT(A) has rightly done. However, keeping in view the factual matrix, conduct of assessee and the products being dealt by the assessee, the rate of 1.77% as estimated by Ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, is quite low. Therefore, we enhance the same to 4% of alleged bogus purchases as well as purchases made by the assessee from Amee Enterprises. Accordingly, we estimate the additions @4% of aggregate purchases of ₹ 3,86,98,368/- made by the assessee from these entities including purchases made from Amee Enterprises. The same comes to ₹ 15,47,935/-. Appeal of revenue stand partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment Years [AY] 2009-10 to 2011-12
- Alleged bogus purchases
- Reopening of reassessment proceedings
- Failure to substantiate purchase transactions
- Addition of peak credit and gross profit
- Onus of proof on the assessee
- Judicial authorities' judgments
- Cash credit addition u/s 68
- Relief provided by Ld. CIT(A)

Analysis:

Assessment Years [AY] 2009-10 to 2011-12:
The appeals by the revenue for these years contest separate orders of the first appellate authority, involving common issues. The judgment addresses the appeals collectively for convenience and brevity.

Alleged bogus purchases:
The core issue revolves around relief provided to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases, leading to disputes between the revenue and the assessee.

Reopening of reassessment proceedings:
Reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a survey conducted under section 133A, followed by statutory notices and objections raised by the assessee against the reopening, which were rejected.

Failure to substantiate purchase transactions:
The assessee failed to substantiate purchase transactions with certain parties, leading to additions by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to lack of satisfactory responses and failure to confirm transactions.

Addition of peak credit and gross profit:
The AO added peak credit amounts to the income of the assessee, along with enhancing the gross profit rate against alleged bogus purchases, resulting in significant additional amounts.

Onus of proof on the assessee:
The onus of proving transactions was on the assessee, who failed to conclusively substantiate the delivery of material and provide satisfactory responses to notices issued under section 133(6).

Judicial authorities' judgments:
Both representatives cited contrary judgments of various judicial authorities during the hearing, but the Tribunal emphasized the factual nature of the case and the need to consider the specific circumstances.

Cash credit addition u/s 68:
The revenue challenged the deletion of cash credit additions made by the AO but deleted by the CIT(A), presenting details of specific loans and reasons for additions and deletions, which were duly considered.

Relief provided by Ld. CIT(A):
The CIT(A) provided relief to the assessee in various instances by estimating additions against alleged bogus purchases at lower rates and deleting certain additional gross profit additions, leading to partial allowance of the revenue's appeals.

The judgment concluded by partly allowing all the appeals filed by the revenue, modifying the orders of the first appellate authority in specific instances based on detailed analysis and considerations of the factual matrix and legal principles.