2021 (4) TMI 231 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - denial of natural justice - addition was made to the assessee s taxable income by adopting the measure that 5% gross profit - as per assessee issuance of summons to the parties who had provided so-called bogus purchase bills and the receipt of information from one such party, was not put to the assessee - HELD THAT - The assessee was not confronted with the material and, therefore, in our view, the assessment order was clearly in jeopardy. What the CIT(A) did, which, in the given circumstances, insofar as the revenue is concerned, was the best way forward is to sustain a part of the addition by taking recourse to the methodology adopted in the assessee s case in an earlier AY i.e. 2006-2007. In that AY, concededly, addition had been made to the assessee s gross income by applying a GP rate of 5%. It is the same methodology that the CIT(A) has adopted and, accordingly, sustained the addition. Therefore, in our view, given the findings of fact returned by the CIT(A), which have been sustained by the Tribunal, no interference is called for. No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the addition made by the assessing officer against purported bogus purchases was sustainable.
2. Whether the methodology adopted by the CIT(A) for sustaining a part of the addition made by the assessing officer was erroneous.
3. Whether the assessment order was in jeopardy due to the failure to confront the assessee with material regarding the so-called bogus purchases.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The principal issue in this case was the sustainability of the addition made by the assessing officer against purported bogus purchases amounting to ?19,40,65,002. The CIT(A) found that the assessing officer disallowed the entire value of the alleged bogus purchases, even though the sales and purchases were accepted in quantitative terms. The purchases were made from parties allegedly controlled by certain individuals providing accommodation entries. The investigation was deemed "half-baked" as only one party responded to the notices issued by the AO. Despite this, an addition to the taxable income was sustained based on the methodology applied in a previous assessment year.

Issue 2: The revenue contended that the methodology adopted by the CIT(A) for sustaining a part of the addition was erroneous and that the addition should have been made under Section 69(C) of the Income Tax Act. However, the court found that the arguments raised were not supported by the assessment order, as there was no reference to Section 69(C). The court also noted that the assessee was not confronted with the material related to the alleged bogus purchases, putting the assessment order in jeopardy.

Issue 3: The court acknowledged that the CIT(A) sustained a part of the addition by applying a methodology used in a previous assessment year. Despite the revenue's objections, the court found that the findings of fact returned by the CIT(A), which were upheld by the Tribunal, did not warrant interference. The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the case and dismissed the appeal.

In summary, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal to sustain a part of the addition to the taxable income based on the methodology applied in a previous assessment year. The court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial question of law arose in the case.