9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 992 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases - CIT- A estimated profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only 12.5% of the bogus purchases - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt, Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . The CIT(A) has also gone through the case and restricted the bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% of ₹ 1,97,383/- i.e.24,672/-. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has no objection to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Anyhow, on seeing the facts and circumstances, it seems quite justifiable to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. We nowhere found any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) in question. - decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of bogus purchases. 2. Estimation of profit from Hawala purchases. 3. Consideration of relevant judicial precedents. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases: The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?62,792/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus purchases. The AO had added this amount based on the assessee's failure to produce adequate documentary evidence such as bills, vouchers, and other supporting documents. The AO relied on information from the Sales Tax Department and DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai, which indicated that the assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties amounting to ?1,97,383/-. The AO concluded that the purchases were not genuine transactions and disallowed the amount of ?87,464/- as the peak of the purchases, treating it as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Estimation of Profit from Hawala Purchases: The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, amounting to ?24,672/-. This decision was based on the rationale that while the purchases were not verifiable, the corresponding sales were genuine. The CIT(A) followed judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd., which held that merely because suppliers did not appear before the AO, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made. Additionally, the CIT(A) considered the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth, which emphasized that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed. The CIT(A) concluded that the entire amount of ?1,97,383/- could not be disallowed, and instead, an estimation of the profit element at 12.5% was appropriate. 3. Consideration of Relevant Judicial Precedents: The CIT(A) relied on several judicial precedents to arrive at the decision, including: - CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd.: Held that purchases cannot be disallowed merely because suppliers did not appear before the AO. - CIT v. Simit P. Sheth: Established that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed. - CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd.: Affirmed that the profit element embedded in purchases, rather than the entire purchase amount, should be subject to tax. The CIT(A) also referred to multiple decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal, which consistently estimated the Gross Profit (GP) addition in cases involving bogus purchases at 12.5%. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, amounting to ?24,672/-. The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and affirmed that the CIT(A) had decided the matter judiciously and correctly. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld. Order: The appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 20/01/2020.
|
