9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 731 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of the present assessment - ADIT (Inv.) Unit-III, Kolhapur was investigating suspicious transactions regarding large value of cash transactions in various specific bank accounts - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - In the instant case, we observe that the AO was in receipt of information that assessee had made bogus purchases on the basis of information received from ADIT (Inv.), Kolhapur. Accordingly, we are of the considered view, that in the instant facts the Assessing Officer had sufficient material / information in his position to form a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment and hence issuance of notice for reopening the re-assessment proceedings was justified, looking into the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that re-assessment proceedings have been validly initiated under Section 147 of the Act. In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. Bogus purchases - GP addition - Investigation Wing of the Department after detailed enquiry and after taking the statement of various Hawala operators on record and on the basis of evidence furnished by such Hawala operates, had come to the conclusion that the assessee had made bogus purchases from the two parties. In the instant facts the assessee had made a specific requisition for allowing the opportunity of cross-examination of the concerned persons on the basis of whose statement the additions have been made in the hands of the assessee (by holding that the purchases from M/s. Param Trading Company and M/s. Rheem Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. is bogus). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is being set-aside to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to offer the assessee an opportunity of cross-examining the concerned persons on the basis of whose statements the aforesaid addition have been made in the hands of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings 2. Addition on Account of Lower Gross Profit (GP) 3. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to PF and ESI 4. Charging of Interest under Section 234B 5. Charging of Interest under Section 234D Summary: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings: The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the AO failed to record his own satisfaction about the correctness of the information received and there was no nexus between the reasons recorded and the nature of the addition made. The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings, stating that the AO had sufficient material to form a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment based on information from the ADIT (Investigation), Kolhapur, regarding bogus purchases from M/s. Param Trading Company and M/s. Rheem Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal cited judicial precedents emphasizing that at the stage of issuance of notice, only a prima facie belief is required to initiate reassessment proceedings. 2. Addition on Account of Lower Gross Profit (GP): The AO observed that the assessee had made bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 21.30 crores from M/s. Param Trading Company and M/s. Rheem Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., leading to a lower GP of 10.75% compared to 15.25% in the preceding year. The AO rejected the book results under Section 145 of the Act and added Rs. 2,41,18,024 to the total income by applying the GP rate of 15.25%. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the purchases were not genuine and were made to inflate the cost of purchases. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned persons on whose statements the additions were based. 3. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to PF and ESI: The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 85,004 in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESI due to a delay in depositing the amounts before the due dates under the respective Acts. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the provided judgment. 4. Charging of Interest under Section 234B: The CIT(A) confirmed the charging of interest of Rs. 25,15,510 under Section 234B of the IT Act, considering it to be of a consequential nature. The assessee argued that this interest was against the provisions of Section 234B(1) and 234B(3) since a refund was granted in the intimation under Section 143(1). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the provided judgment. 5. Charging of Interest under Section 234D: The CIT(A) confirmed the charging of interest of Rs. 52,921 under Section 234D of the Act, considering it to be of a consequential nature. The assessee argued that the correct interest should be Rs. 46,332 for the period from 11-8-2014 to 25-2-2015. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the provided judgment. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the addition on account of lower GP but remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned persons. The issues related to the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI, and the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234D were not specifically addressed in the provided judgment.
|
