2022 (10) TMI 1117 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - In absence of any dependable material for the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion about the bogus purchases made by the assessee to make addition of the entire purchases under section 68 of the Act as income for the year under consideration. CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal therefore, considering the possibility of bogus purchases on the basis of documentary evidence produced before the appellate authority have arrived at the concurrent findings of fact by holding that factum of said three parties already being engaged in bogus billing was not ruled out and therefore, sustained the addition by estimating 10% of alleged bogus proceedings considering the Gross Profit Ratio of 3.98% shown by the assessee for the year under consideration. In view of above concurrent findings of the fact arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal, we do not find any error with the impugned order giving rise to any question of law much-less substantial question of law for consideration.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchases to 10% of such purchases?
2. Whether the decision in the case of M/s N. K Industries Ltd. is applicable in the present case?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenged the Tribunal's decision to limit the addition for bogus purchases to 10% of the total amount. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 6,45,676 under section 68 of the Act due to alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee based on information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority. The CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases after considering the evidence provided by the assessee, which included audit reports and ledger accounts. The Tribunal found that the Revenue lacked material to support the addition and confirmed the CIT(Appeals) decision, stating that no internal inquiry was conducted to verify the bogus purchases. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence to substantiate the full addition, leading to the restriction to 10%.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the decisions of the CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal were erroneous in light of the judgment in the case of M/s N. K Industries Ltd., which held that additions based on bogus purchases couldn't be limited to a percentage when the entire transaction was deemed bogus. However, the Court noted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer solely relied on information from the Sales Tax Department without further inquiry into the genuineness of the purchases. The CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal, while acknowledging the potential for bogus billing by the three parties involved, considered the evidence presented by the assessee and estimated the addition at 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Court found that the facts of the present case differed from the N. K Industries Ltd. case, as there was insufficient material for the Assessing Officer to conclude that the purchases were entirely bogus. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal based on the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of substantial questions of law for consideration.