9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 521 - AT - Income TaxBogus Purchases - Estimation of income - HELD THAT - We note that concise and summarized ground no.1 of Revenue is covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary 2021 (10) TMI 653 - ITAT SURAT Hence, respectfully following the judgment of co-ordinate Bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases. Addition on account of unrecorded commission - HELD THAT - We note that findings of ld CIT(A) states that such additions has been made merely on presumption that the assessee must have paid commission to accommodation entry provider. The assessing officer has not proved with cogent evidence that assessee has paid commission, hence such addition is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, we note that conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition on account of bogus purchases to 2%. 2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained sales proceeds. 3. Deletion of addition on account of unrecorded commission. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Restriction of Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases to 2% The Revenue challenged the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition made on account of bogus purchases to only 2%, arguing that the entire purchases should be treated as bogus. The assessee, engaged in the export of diamonds, had its premises searched, revealing that the entities from which it claimed to have made purchases were non-existent. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,08,40,112 as bogus purchases. The CIT(A) partially allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that the books of account and audit reports did not show discrepancies and that the purchases might have been over-invoiced. Therefore, the CIT(A) sustained only 2% of the purchases as disallowance. The Tribunal referenced the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, where the addition for bogus purchases was sustained at 6%. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to sustain the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Sales Proceeds The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,18,92,916, which the AO had treated as unexplained cash credits. The AO argued that since the entities to which sales were shown were bogus, the transactions were unexplained. The CIT(A) found that the sales were well-explained from the quantitative details evidenced in the audit reports and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no infirmity in the order and confirming that the sales were adequately explained. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 3: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unrecorded Commission The AO added Rs. 16,366 as unexplained commission, presuming that the assessee must have paid commission to the accommodation entry provider. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that it was made merely on presumption without any cogent evidence. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO had not provided evidence to substantiate the payment of commission. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Conclusion The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals by directing the AO to sustain the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning the deletion of additions on account of unexplained sales proceeds and unrecorded commission.
|
