2021 (9) TMI 252 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Bogus purchases - whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief that income has escaped assessment? - HELD THAT - As the original return was processed u/s. 143(1). Subsequently, upon receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.), it transpired that the assessee made suspicious purchase in A.Ys. 2010-11 2011-12. On the basis of said information, Ld. AO formed a belief that assessee would have taken bogus bills in A.Y. 2012-13 also to suppress profits. Another reason of reopening was the fact that there was difference in TDS figures. On the given facts, in our opinion, the presence of this material/information was quite enough to reopen the case and no infirmity could be found in reopening the case of the assessee. The legal grounds, thus raised, stand dismissed. Estimation of income o bogus purchases - Quantum of additions - AR has submitted that similar issue arose in A.Ys. 2010-11 2011-12 wherein Ld. AO estimated addition of 15% in set-aside proceedings - Since the same has been accepted by both the sides, similar estimation may be made in this year, concurring with the same and adopting consistent approach in the matter, we direct Ld. AO to estimate the additions @ 15% The balance addition stand deleted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceeding
2. Quantum of additions

Validity of reassessment proceeding:
The case involved an appeal against the confirmation of certain addition of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The reassessment was framed under section 143(3) read with section 147, and it was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)-26, Mumbai. The assessee challenged the reopening of the case on legal grounds, arguing that it was based on mere suspicion. The Ld. AO reopened the case based on information received from DGIT (Inv.) regarding suspicious purchases made in previous assessment years. The Ld. AO formed an opinion that the assessee would have taken bogus bills in the relevant year to suppress profits. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating that at the initiation stage, only a reason to believe was required, not the established fact of income escapement. The Tribunal found the reopening to be valid, as there was sufficient material/information to support it, and dismissed the legal grounds raised by the assessee.

Quantum of additions:
During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee made suspicious purchases of a certain amount from six entities, which the assessee could not substantiate to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum addition, and the assessee appealed further. The Ld. AR argued for an estimation of additions at 15%, similar to previous assessment years, which was accepted by both sides. The Tribunal directed the Ld. AO to estimate the additions at 15% of the disputed amount, resulting in a specific sum. The remaining balance of the addition was deleted, and the appeal was partly allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceeding based on substantial information and directed a specific quantum of additions to be made, following a consistent approach from previous years.