2021 (10) TMI 652 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - CIT(A) worked out the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases at 15% of the value of such purchases - HELD THAT - The impugned purchases formed part of the sales/contract receipts of the assessee had not been dislodged by the A.O, therefore, it can safely be gathered that the assessee had procured the impugned material not from the aforementioned hawala parties but from the open/grey market. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the observations of the CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by him that the addition qua the impugned purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned party was liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit which the assessee would have made by procuring such goods at a discounted value from the open/grey market. Quantification of the aforesaid profit element we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) had taken the GP rate of the assessee for the last eight years i.e. AY 2007-08 to AY 2014-15 of 15.88% as a yardstick and on the said reasoned basis restricted the addition to 15% of the value of the impugned bogus purchases of ₹ 2,12,513/-. Accordingly, backed by our aforesaid deliberations we find no merit in the appeal of the revenue and dismiss the same. The Grounds of appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of disallowance of bogus purchase transactions.
2. Consideration of information from DIT(Inv.) and Sales Tax Department.
3. Admissions by hawala operators regarding non-sale of material.
4. Proof of genuineness and creditworthiness of purchase transactions.
5. Onus on the assessee to justify the claim of expenses.
6. Application of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N K Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT.

Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restriction of Disallowance of Bogus Purchase Transactions:
The primary issue is whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to 15% of the total bogus purchase transactions instead of 100%. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had purchased goods from the open/grey market at a discounted value, not from the tainted parties. Therefore, the addition should be limited to the profit margin, which was calculated at 15% based on the average gross profit rate over eight years. The Tribunal upheld this view, agreeing that the purchases were genuine but made from different sources, thus justifying the 15% disallowance.

2. Consideration of Information from DIT(Inv.) and Sales Tax Department:
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider the addition based on information from DIT(Inv.) and the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that while the information indicated bogus transactions, the CIT(A) had considered the overall business context and concluded that the goods were indeed purchased and used in the business, albeit from different sources.

3. Admissions by Hawala Operators:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) ignored the admissions by hawala operators before the Sales Tax Authorities that they had not sold any material. The Tribunal acknowledged these admissions but emphasized that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence showing the consumption of goods in the business, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the profit element.

4. Proof of Genuineness and Creditworthiness of Purchase Transactions:
The assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness of the purchase transactions. Notices sent to the alleged vendors were either unserved or unanswered. Despite this, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal concluded that the purchases were genuine but made from different sources, justifying the 15% profit margin disallowance.

5. Onus on the Assessee to Justify the Claim of Expenses:
The revenue argued that the assessee did not discharge the onus of justifying the claimed expenses. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not fully substantiate the purchases from the alleged vendors, the evidence of goods consumption in the business and payment through account payee cheques supported the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the profit margin.

6. Application of the Decision in N K Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT:
The revenue cited the Apex Court's decision in N K Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT, arguing that entire purchases from bogus suppliers should be disallowed. The Tribunal distinguished the present case, noting that the assessee had shown the consumption of goods in the business. The CIT(A) had appropriately restricted the disallowance to the profit element, aligning with judicial precedents that consider the business context and actual consumption of goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 15% of the total bogus purchase transactions, considering the overall business context and the evidence of goods consumption. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, affirming that the disallowance should be limited to the profit margin embedded in the purchases from the open/grey market.

← Previous Next →