2020 (9) TMI 912 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - estimated addition @12.5% - HELD THAT - Although the assessee defended the purchases by furnishing purchase invoices, bank statements evidencing payment through banking channels, quantitative details etc. but failed to produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of transactions. Assessee also failed to furnish delivery challans, transport receipts, octroi receipts etc. to substantiate the delivery of material. Accordingly, a view was taken that the purchases were inflated to suppress the true profits. AO estimated an addition of 12.5% against these purchases following the decision in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and completed the assessment. Assessee remained negligent in attending the appellate proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities of being heard. Keeping in view of principle of natural justice and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before first appellate authority. Accordingly, the case stands remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for re-adjudication with a direction to the assessee to defend his case before first appellate authority failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of material on record. - Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice in passing orders.
3. Rejection of books of accounts and addition on estimation basis.
4. Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment under section 147
The appellant contested the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding the re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appellant argued against the estimated addition of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases, highlighting the normal profit rate in the appellant's line of business. The appellant failed to attend the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner despite multiple opportunities provided. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, ultimately granting another opportunity to the appellant to represent their case before the first appellate authority. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner for re-adjudication, with a direction for the appellant to defend their case.

Issue 2: Compliance with principles of natural justice
The appellant raised concerns about the Commissioner passing orders without complying with the principles of natural justice. Despite the appellant's defense with purchase invoices, bank statements, and other details, the failure to produce suppliers for transaction confirmation and other essential documents led to the Commissioner's decision to estimate an addition of 12.5% against the purchases. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's negligence in attending the appellate proceedings but emphasized the importance of natural justice. Consequently, the case was sent back to the Commissioner for re-adjudication with a fresh opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

Issue 3: Rejection of books of accounts and addition on estimation basis
The appellant contested the rejection of books of accounts and the subsequent addition on an estimation basis. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's defense due to the lack of essential documents to substantiate the purchases. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to effectively represent before the Commissioner, resulting in the confirmation of the assessment. The Tribunal granted the appellant another chance to present their case before the Commissioner to ensure fairness and adherence to natural justice principles.

Issue 4: Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases
The appellant challenged the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases, specifically the confirmation of the addition of 12.5% on the purchases. The Tribunal observed the appellant's lack of effective representation before the Commissioner, leading to the confirmation of the disallowance. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to defend their case before the first appellate authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on ensuring the appellant's right to a fair hearing and representation before the authorities, emphasizing the principles of natural justice in tax assessment proceedings.