2019 (3) TMI 574 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee has made purchases from bogus concerns - HELD THAT - Evidence possessed by the assessee is that payment to the alleged seller was made through banking channel. Payment through banking channel cannot be sacrosanct in all conditions. It has its own limitation to prove genuineness of the transaction. It is one of the basic conditions for making accommodation entries that payment should be made through banking channel. That does not mean that transaction has actually been taken place. Had the assessee able to produce any corroborative evidence in the shape of any agreement or correspondence, any evidence showing delivery of goods or dispatch of goods, probably to some extent, he could able to demonstrate the purchases made from these concerns. The assessee has only produced certain self-serving evidences in a straight-jacket formula normally collected in this type of transaction. If these evidences are tested in the background, how the shell entities used to function, discussed by the ITAT, in the case of Pavankumar Sanghvi 2017 (5) TMI 1159 - ITAT AHMEDABAD then it would reveal that it is not sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee has made purchases from these concerns. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Inflated Expenditure and Genuineness of Purchases
2. Reliance on Statements from Search and Seizure Operations
3. Opportunity for Cross-Examination
4. Evidence Provided by the Assessee
5. Consistency with Prior Assessments

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inflated Expenditure and Genuineness of Purchases:
The primary grievance of the assessee revolves around the confirmation of additions of ?2,00,000/- and ?5,63,833/- for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively. The AO added these amounts on the grounds that the assessee inflated its expenditure and failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from Kriya Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Kalash Enterprises. The AO cited several reasons for rejecting the explanations provided by the assessee, including the non-verifiability of purchases, the modus operandi to reduce true profits, and the lack of documentary evidence regarding the details of goods traded.

2. Reliance on Statements from Search and Seizure Operations:
The AO's decision was influenced by information obtained from the investigation wing, which indicated that the entities from which the assessee made purchases were involved in providing accommodation entries. This was based on statements made under oath by individuals associated with these entities during search and seizure operations. The AO concluded that the purchases shown by the assessee were inflated and bogus, aimed at suppressing true profits.

3. Opportunity for Cross-Examination:
The assessee contended that the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Rajendra Jain, who had provided statements against the genuineness of the transactions, was not given. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not solely rely on the statements of Shri Rajendra Jain but also considered the lack of corroborative evidence from the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases.

4. Evidence Provided by the Assessee:
The assessee argued that payments were made through banking channels and provided bank certificates, income-tax returns, PAN, and confirmations from the alleged sellers. However, the Tribunal emphasized that payment through banking channels alone is not conclusive evidence of genuine transactions, especially when the entities involved are known to provide accommodation entries. The assessee failed to provide additional corroborative evidence, such as internal communications, delivery receipts, or any other documentation demonstrating the actual delivery of goods.

5. Consistency with Prior Assessments:
The assessee pointed out that similar purchases in other assessment years were accepted by the CIT(A), and no appeals were filed by the Revenue due to the low monetary effect. However, the Tribunal held that each assessment year is separate and must be judged on its own merits. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the assessee in the present case was insufficient to prove the genuineness of the purchases.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to demonstrate the genuineness of the purchases and that the evidence provided was not sufficient to counter the findings of the AO. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's reliance on prior assessments where similar purchases were accepted did not establish a precedent for the current assessment years.

← Previous Next →