2022 (2) TMI 914 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus/unaccounted purchases - HELD THAT - Apart from that Bll No. 1511 dated 06.07.2011 along with above said annexures were filed before the lower authorities bank payments details were falso filed by the assessee. In our considered opinion that assessee has discharged its onus merely on the information received from the Investigation Wing, addition cannot be made as assessee has filed all the relevant details which proved case of the assessee beyond any reasonable doubt that assessee has purchased the paddy after completing the formality and making the payment through banking channel and all relevant details were filed before the lower authorities. However, no unaccounted purchase has been made by the assessee. Addition on the basis of trade GP @ of 5% - assessee has sold paddy for which the assessee firm had received cash payment in lieu of that sales - A.R. filed an application under Rule 46A along with a certificate issued by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. dated 09.09.2021 wherein it is mentioned that as per record of this office rice mill named M/s. Tata Rice Mills, Zira was allotted to PUNSUP for custom milling during Crop year 2008-09 to 2020-21 and nothing is recoverable from said firm till date as per instruction/guidelines issued by Government and directions given by Honourable Courts - HELD THAT - There is no dispute between PUNSUP and above said firm. The Ld. A.R. certified certificate true copy of the said letter, therefore we admit the same. Since no corroborated evidence has been cited against the assessee by the lower authorities and it was alleged by the Assessing Officer that unaccounted sales were made to PUNSUP Now certificate dated 09/09/2021has been issued by the District Manager PUNSUP, Ferozpur when both the parties are denying any transaction then how addition can be sustained. So in the absence of any concrete evidence against the assessee such addition cannot be sustained. Thus we allow this ground of appeal

Issues:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of sustaining additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).
3. Assessment of alleged bogus purchases and unrecorded sales by the assessee.
4. Compliance with legal provisions and submission of evidence by the assessee.
5. Dispute regarding unaccounted sales to PUNSUP or any other Agency.

Issue 1: Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appeal challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148, contending that there was no failure to disclose material facts by the assessee. The notice was issued by the AO based on information received from the Investigation Wing, indicating escaped income. The Tribunal held that the notice was issued in conformity with legal provisions, dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Issue 2: Justification of sustaining additions made by the AO and CIT(A):
The AO made additions on account of alleged bogus purchases and unrecorded sales. The CIT(A) sustained these additions. The assessee provided evidence to support the transactions, including bills, consignment documents, and bank payment details. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing relevant details, proving the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the additions were not justified, and this ground of appeal was allowed.

Issue 3: Assessment of alleged bogus purchases and unrecorded sales by the assessee:
The AO alleged bogus purchases and unrecorded sales by the assessee. However, the assessee presented evidence to refute these claims, demonstrating the authenticity of the transactions. The Tribunal concluded that no unaccounted purchases were made, and the additions were unwarranted, ruling in favor of the assessee on this issue.

Issue 4: Compliance with legal provisions and submission of evidence by the assessee:
The assessee complied with legal requirements by submitting detailed evidence to support the transactions in question. The Tribunal acknowledged the thorough documentation provided by the assessee, which effectively countered the allegations made by the tax authorities. As a result, the Tribunal allowed this ground of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling evidentiary requirements.

Issue 5: Dispute regarding unaccounted sales to PUNSUP or any other Agency:
There was a dispute regarding alleged unaccounted sales to PUNSUP or any other Agency. The assessee denied these transactions, and supporting documentation was submitted to corroborate this denial. The Tribunal considered the lack of concrete evidence against the assessee and the conflicting statements from both parties involved. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue, disallowing the addition related to these disputed sales.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal on merit. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the tax authorities were not substantiated, as the assessee had provided comprehensive evidence to support the transactions under scrutiny. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and fulfilling evidentiary requirements in tax assessments.

← Previous Next →