9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 820 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - addition on account of suppression of GP on accommodation entries - AO T axing only profit by estimating GP on alleged bogus purchase - Reopening of assessment on the basis of information received by Investigation Wing after search on Bhanwarlal Jain group - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Mohommad Haji Adam Co. 2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (7) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that in case of bogus purchases, purchases cannot be rejected without distrusting the sales in case of a trader. The addition can be restricted to the extent of GP rate on such purchases to bring it at par with genuine purchases. In other words, it is only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchase bills that is to be brought to tax and the entire bogus purchases cannot be added. AO was right in taxing only profit by estimating GP on alleged bogus purchases. As regards invoking of jurisdiction under section 263 by PCIT, we are of considered view that the PCIT has over stepped while exercising his revisional powers - AO has passed the order by estimating GP after examining the documents on record and considering various judicial pronouncements - AO has taken one of the possible views by making reasonable assumption that the assessee might have procured the goods from grey market. This assumption has been accepted by the Tribunal in various decisions where the revenue has accepted the sales/ turnover corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT in an unambiguous manner has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views to which CIT does not agree, this would not make the assessment order erroneous. In the instant case the assessment order may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue but it cannot be said to be erroneous. Since, both the conditions to trigger Sec 263 are not satisfied, the PCIT has erred in invoking his revisional power. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Revision of assessment order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. 2. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) on alleged bogus entries and accommodation entries. 3. Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to invoke revisional powers. 4. Interpretation of section 263 conditions for invoking revisional jurisdiction. 5. Application of judicial pronouncements on estimating GP in case of alleged bogus purchases. 6. Consistency in assessment orders for multiple years. Analysis: 1. Revision of Assessment Order under Section 263: The appeals were directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The PCIT set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and directed a fresh assessment due to alleged errors in estimating Gross Profit (GP) on accommodation entries. 2. Estimation of Gross Profit on Bogus Entries: The Assessing Officer estimated GP on alleged bogus entries at a higher rate than declared by the assessee. The PCIT sought to add the entire amount of alleged accommodation entries to tax, while the AR argued that only the profit element embedded in the bogus entries should be taxed. Judicial pronouncements were cited to support the contention that only the profit element should be brought to tax. 3. Jurisdiction of PCIT to Invoke Revisional Powers: The PCIT invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 based on disagreement with the Assessing Officer's estimation of GP. The AR contended that once an issue is under appeal, the PCIT cannot invoke revisional powers on the same issue. The PCIT's authority to revise the assessment order was challenged. 4. Interpretation of Section 263 Conditions: The Tribunal analyzed the conditions for invoking section 263, emphasizing that an order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue for the PCIT to exercise revisional powers. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's decision was based on reasonable assumptions and did not warrant revision under section 263. 5. Application of Judicial Pronouncements: The Tribunal referred to judicial decisions to support the position that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Assessing Officer's estimation of GP was considered valid based on judicial precedents and the principle of taxing the profit embedded in bogus transactions. 6. Consistency in Assessment Orders: The Tribunal noted the consistency in facts and issues across the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The findings and decisions made for one assessment year were deemed applicable to the subsequent years due to the similarity in circumstances and issues. In conclusion, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders and allowed the appeals of the assessee for all three Assessment Years, emphasizing the importance of taxing only the profit element in alleged bogus transactions and the limitations on the PCIT's revisional powers under section 263.
|
