2021 (7) TMI 134 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of bogus purchases - HELD THAT - Without purchases there cannot be processing of yarn, therefore, entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed. The possibility is that the assessee made purchases from grey market and obtained bogus purchase bills from hawala operators. It is only the profit element embedded in such transactions that has to be brought to tax. See PCIT vs. Paramshakhti Distributors Pvt. Ltd 2019 (7) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - assessee submitted that the G.P declared by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11 is 6.68%. However, on perusal of assessment order it is observed that the G.P has been worked out to be 8.12%. The same has not been disputed by the assessee either before the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. To meet ends of justice it would be fair to restrict disallowance on unproved purchases to 10%. Appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Assessment of alleged bogus purchases for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12
- Burden of proof on genuineness of purchases
- Disallowance of unproved purchases
- Validity of assessment
- Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C

Analysis:

Assessment of alleged bogus purchases for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12:
The appellant, engaged in dyeing of yarn, challenged the addition of alleged bogus purchases made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant provided ledger accounts, purchase invoices, and bank statements to substantiate the genuineness of purchases. However, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the evidence and made additions to the total alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer based on the presumption that the appellant failed to prove the actual consumption of goods. The appellant contended that the addition should be deleted as there was sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The Tribunal observed that while the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the Assessing Officer accepted the sales turnover and closing stock declared by the appellant. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance on unproved purchases to 10% considering the profit element in such transactions.

Burden of proof on genuineness of purchases:
The Department argued that the appellant did not discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of purchases and the dealers involved. The appellant failed to produce dealers, consumption records, and documentary evidence regarding the transportation of goods from suspicious dealers. The Tribunal noted the absence of documents like Octroi receipts and stock registers to establish the trail of goods. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged that purchases are essential for processing yarn and restricted the disallowance to 10% of unproved purchases.

Disallowance of unproved purchases:
The Tribunal found that the appellant's Gross Profit (G.P) declared for the assessment year 2010-11 was 6.68%, while the assessed G.P was 8.12%. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to restrict the disallowance on unproved purchases to 10% to ensure justice. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in this regard.

Validity of assessment and Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge to the validity of assessment as no arguments were presented on this ground. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C is mandatory and consequential, requiring no separate adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals for both assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, restricting the disallowance on unproved purchases to 10% based on the appellant's declared G.P. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of purchases and dealers while considering the profit element in transactions involving alleged bogus purchases.