2022 (1) TMI 89 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - Lower authorities have allowed 75% of the very purchases in the assessment order itself - HELD THAT - This assessee is a trader in TMT Bars with corresponding sales involving M/s. Nimbus Industries Ltd. qua the very purchase(s) difference. It had the difference amount admitted as business income and stood assessed as such. Coupled with this, this assessee has filed detailed paper book containing all the relevant details of the alleged bogus entity M/s. Highland Industries Ltd. along with the fact that it had paid the corresponding purchase amount through banking channel only. The Revenue's endeavor herein seeking to restore 25% of purchases on estimation basis thereby accepting the balance 75% component in case to the very supplier as well as in assessing 100% sales therefrom as correct suffers from mutually contradictory stands. We thus conclude that the CIT(A) has rightly restricted the impugned 25% bogus purchases disallowed to the extent of profit element only going by the corresponding book results which have nowhere been rejected till date. The Revenue's sole substantive grievance is therefore rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of CIT(A)'s action restricting the Assessing Officer's disallowance of 25% of aggregate purchases.
2. Verification of the genuineness of transactions between the assessee and M/s. Highland Industries Ltd.
3. Evaluation of the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
4. Determination of the profit element from the transactions in question.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of CIT(A)'s Action Restricting the Assessing Officer's Disallowance:
The Revenue's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s decision to limit the disallowance imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the assessee's purchases from M/s. Highland Industries Ltd. The AO had disallowed 25% of the purchases amounting to ?14,42,34,041/-, while the CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to the net profits declared in the books of accounts, which was ?11,54,448/-. The CIT(A) justified this by stating that the transactions were recorded in the books, payments were made through banking channels, and there were no pending debtors or creditors at the end of the financial year.

2. Verification of the Genuineness of Transactions:
The AO questioned the genuineness of the transactions due to the lack of documentary evidence and the non-compliance of the parties involved when notices were issued under section 133(6). The AO noted that the transactions appeared to be accommodation entries as the parties could not be verified, and there was no substantial evidence such as delivery challans or transport details. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, invoices, and quantitative sales and purchase registers, which were not adequately considered by the AO.

3. Evaluation of Documentary Evidence:
The assessee argued that the transactions were genuine and supported by banking transactions and proper invoices. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had not disputed the sales and the corresponding purchases, and all transactions were through banking channels. The CIT(A) relied on the precedent set by the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Meena Jewellers P. Ltd., which stated that when sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be disallowed if payments are made through banking channels.

4. Determination of the Profit Element:
The CIT(A) concluded that the difference between the purchase and sale amounts should be treated as profit. The CIT(A) confirmed the profit amount of ?11,54,448/- and deleted the remaining disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the assessee had admitted the difference amount as business income and had been assessed accordingly. The Tribunal found the Revenue's attempt to restore the 25% disallowance contradictory, as it had already accepted 75% of the purchases and 100% of the sales.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the net profit declared by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions and that the AO's disallowance was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had rightly restricted the disallowance to the profit element, aligning with the book results which had not been rejected.

← Previous Next →