2021 (8) TMI 430 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus sales - unaccounted income - CIT(A) deleted the additions - Revenue contended that, onus of establishing genuineness of transaction was on the assessee which it failed - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has given a detailed finding that nothing has been found during survey to conclude that the assessee is generating additional unaccounted income. In-fact, all the details relating to the sales as well as purchases were given during the assessment proceedings and the books were not at all rejected by the AO, which was properly maintained by the assessee. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Thus, the appeal of the Revenue does not survive. Assessee has filed appeal under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 relating to the contrary findings given by the CIT(A) to the factual aspect of the evidences produced before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). As regards the observation of the CIT(A) that sales are bogus are contrary to the findings of the CIT(A) in the order itself as well as while going through the records also the sales are properly explained by the Assessee before the Revenue authorities. When we looked into the evidences, we found that all the entries as well as bills and vouchers of each transaction along with transportation receipts and details were meticulously given before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The observation made by the CIT(A) is contrary to the records. Thus, we allow application filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of bogus sales.
2. Treatment of commission income on alleged bogus transactions.
3. Validity of the assessment order passed by the CIT(A).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Bogus Sales:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?4,05,53,574/- made on account of bogus sales to M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially added this amount as income from other sources, based on a statement by the Director of the assessee company, who admitted that the sales and purchases were merely book entries. However, the CIT(A) concluded that both sales and corresponding purchases were book entries with no impact on the profitability since they were duly recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, noting that the AO did not reject the books of accounts and that the details of sales and purchases were properly maintained and presented. The Tribunal emphasized that no additional unaccounted income was generated, and thus, the addition was not tenable.

2. Treatment of Commission Income on Alleged Bogus Transactions:
The Revenue also contested the CIT(A)'s decision to hold that the assessee earned commission income of only 0.25% on the transactions with M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. The CIT(A) had assumed that the assessee must have received a commission for providing bogus entries, amounting to ?1,01,400/-. However, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to support this assumption. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) himself admitted that no evidence showed that payments received from M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. were returned by the assessee or that payments made to M/s Ramsarup Utpadak were received back. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of ?1,01,400/- was based on surmises and conjectures and was not supported by any evidence.

3. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed by the CIT(A):
The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s order and found that it was detailed and well-reasoned. The CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that no additional unaccounted income was generated by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the sales and purchases were merely book entries and that the addition made by the AO was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide any corroborative evidence to support the addition and that the assessee had provided all necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that deleted the addition of ?4,05,53,574/- on account of bogus sales and the assumption of commission income of ?1,01,400/-. The Tribunal found that the AO's additions were not supported by any corroborative evidence and that the assessee had properly maintained and presented all necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's application under Rule 27, noting that the CIT(A)'s observation that the sales were bogus was contrary to the records and the evidence presented.