2021 (8) TMI 273 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus expenses - Rejection of books of accounts - compliance have not been given by the transporter parties to whom notices u/s 133(6) of I.T. Act were issued - transportation expenses pertaining to parties as bogus only on the basis of non-compliance made by these parties to the summon issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 131 - HELD THAT - It is undisputed fact that as per the material on record these two parties were existed at the given addresses. In this regard, it is observed that Assessing Officer has neither taken any steps to enforce the attendance of these parties in view of non-compliance of the summons nor made any further investigation on the basis of bank account showing the payment made by the assessee to these two parties and also not asked any detail from the assessee pertaining to the particulars of trucks deployed for transportation by these two parties. AO has not taken any action u/s. 271A(1)(c) of the Act as per which if any person to whom summon is issued u/s. 131(1) either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time, omit to comply, he can be penalized u/s. 272A(1)(c) of the act. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, we consider that the Assessing Officer has neither initiated any proceedings to enforce the attendance of thee two parties in compliance to the summon issued nor contradicting the other evidences i.e. copy of bank account, invoices etc., therefore, the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to sustain the impugned addition is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of books of accounts due to non-compliance of transporter parties.
2. Addition of income based on average net profit for 3 years.
3. Legality of the order passed by the CIT(A).

Issue 1: Rejection of books of accounts due to non-compliance of transporter parties

The case involved the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts by the Assessing Officer due to non-compliance of transporter parties with notices issued under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer treated purchases from certain parties as bogus purchases, resulting in an addition to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) sustained the addition, stating that two creditors remained unverified. However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee provided detailed information, including PAN numbers, office addresses, ledger accounts, and bank statements, to support the transactions with the unverified parties. The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not take adequate steps to verify the genuineness of expenses related to the unverified parties. As the parties were found to exist at the provided addresses, and considering the lack of enforcement of summon compliance or further investigation, the tribunal held that the addition was not justified. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Issue 2: Addition of income based on average net profit for 3 years

The Assessing Officer estimated the net profit based on the average net profit shown in the last three assessment years and made an addition to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, mentioning that two creditors remained unverified. However, during the appellate proceedings, it was argued that the addition was made without proper consideration of the details and evidence provided by the assessee. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not take sufficient steps to verify the transactions with the unverified parties and did not utilize available evidence such as bank statements and invoices. As a result, the tribunal found the addition to be unjustified and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Issue 3: Legality of the order passed by the CIT(A)

The CIT(A) was criticized for upholding the additions without proper consideration of the evidence provided by the assessee. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately assess the details and documents submitted by the assessee to support the transactions in question. The tribunal concluded that the decision to sustain the additions was not justified due to the lack of enforcement of summon compliance and further investigation by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, highlighting the failure of the lower authorities to properly evaluate the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal, in the judgment, allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the additions made by the lower authorities based on the lack of proper verification and consideration of the evidence provided by the assessee.