2020 (1) TMI 603 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - CIT(A) sustaining the addition to the tune of 8% of alleged disputed purchase by applying the G.P ratio of 8% - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Oden Builders P. Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 1072 - SUPREME COURT find that in the present case since the entire addition has been made based on an information gathered from the Investigation Wing of the Department and admittedly since the statements were recorded behind back of the assessee and the AO has made the addition without giving any opportunity to cross examine according to me cannot be the basis of an addition, when the fact is that assessee has produced all the relevant documents like purchase bills, VAT registration of the sellers, C.S.T, bank transaction details etc., which are available in the paper book, therefore the addition is not warranted and cannot be sustained. Therefore, allow both the appeal(s) of assessee and direct the AO to delete the addition(s) made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) orders for AY 2011-12, Addition of 8% disputed purchase, Genuineness of purchase transactions, Non-credence to documents by AO, Lack of opportunity for cross-examination, Legal precedent on third-party information-based additions.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against CIT(A) orders for AY 2011-12:
The appeals were filed against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-12. The main grievance of the assessee was regarding the sustaining of the addition to the tune of 8% of alleged disputed purchase by applying the G.P ratio of 8%.

2. Addition of 8% disputed purchase:
The AO made the addition of 8% profit of total purchases from concerns providing accommodation entries, based on specific information received. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine, supported by proper bills, VAT returns, and purchase inputs. The AO did not consider the documents provided by the assessee, leading to the dispute.

3. Genuineness of purchase transactions:
The assessee presented various documents like purchase bills, VAT registration of sellers, bank transaction details, etc., to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The AO did not give credence to these documents, leading to a lack of substantiation of the purchases being genuine.

4. Non-credence to documents by AO:
Despite the documents provided by the assessee to support the genuineness of the purchases, the AO did not consider them while making the addition. The failure of the AO to give weightage to the evidence presented raised concerns about the validity of the addition.

5. Lack of opportunity for cross-examination:
The AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third party whose statements were relied upon for making the addition. This lack of procedural fairness was a crucial point in the appeal, highlighting the importance of providing such opportunities in tax assessments.

6. Legal precedent on third-party information-based additions:
The judgment referred to a case where a disallowance based solely on third-party information without further verification or opportunity for cross-examination was held to be invalid. The court emphasized the need for independent scrutiny and the right to cross-examine when making additions based on such information.

In conclusion, the ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing the AO to delete the additions made, citing the lack of procedural fairness, non-consideration of relevant documents, and the legal precedent emphasizing the importance of independent verification and cross-examination in cases involving third-party information.