2018 (12) TMI 818 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - estimation of profit - Held that - CIT(A) has confirmed the profit rate at the rate of 12.5%, which according to me is on higher side going by the nature of business of the assessee i.e. Pipes and Pipe Fittings. We are in full agreement with the contentions raised by the assessee before CIT(A) and according to me a profit rate of 12.5% is on higher side as assessee has also paid the VAT element on these bogus purchases, a further deduction in estimation of profit to the extent of 4.5% can be allowed. Hence, direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 8% and compute the income accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition made by AO being estimate of profit percentage on bogus purchases.
2. Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Addition on Bogus Purchases:
The appeal concerns the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on an estimate of profit percentage on bogus purchases. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the AO to restrict the addition. The assessee contested this, arguing that the addition was unjustified and arbitrary. The assessee, engaged in trading pipes and pipe fittings, was found to have made purchases from hawala parties providing bogus bills. The AO, after receiving information and issuing notices, made an addition to the returned income of the assessee. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, citing a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. However, the Judicial Member found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the nature of the business. The Judicial Member directed the AO to recompute the income at a profit rate of 8%, allowing a further deduction in estimation of profit.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80C:
The second issue pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80C of the Income Tax Act amounting to ?1,00,000. The assessee raised a ground challenging this disallowance as arbitrary and unjustified. However, during the proceedings, the counsel for the assessee did not press this issue due to the smallness of the amount, and it was dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed on this issue as well.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee concerning the addition on bogus purchases by directing the AO to recompute the income at a lower profit rate. Additionally, the disallowance of the deduction under section 80C was dismissed as not pressed due to the negligible amount involved. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues raised by the assessee and the decisions made by the authorities involved in the case.