2023 (7) TMI 748 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - As the alleged bogus purchases are part of the total sales made by the assessee and accepted by the AO. Assuming yet not accepting that the impugned purchases are bogus all that can be added is the profit element embedded there in as held in the case of Mohammed Hazi 2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT which has been followed by 2023 (6) TMI 1123 - ITAT DELHI . We find that the net profit shown by the assessee is 7.50%, therefore, the AO is directed to restrict the addition to 7.50% being the alleged bogus purchases and delete the balance amount. We further direct the AO to delete the addition being alleged commission on accommodation entries as the said amount has been subsumed in the aforementioned addition. Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of the order passed by CIT (A), justification for reopening the case u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, sustaining additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on alleged bogus purchases, and addition of commission for arranging accommodation entries.

Validity of CIT (A) Order:
The appellant challenged the order of CIT (A) on the grounds that it was bad in law. The CIT (A) was criticized for upholding the AO's decision to reopen the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the AO did not have sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Additionally, the CIT (A) was faulted for sustaining 25% of the addition made by the AO based on a decision of the High Court of Gujarat.

Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The AO concluded that purchases made by the assessee from two entities, Kothari Impex and Khushi Gems Pvt Ltd, were bogus based on information received from the Investigation Wing. Consequently, the AO treated these purchases as bogus and made an addition of Rs. 13,921,785. The appellant argued that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of accounts and there was no error or defect pointed out by the AO. The Tribunal held that even if the purchases were considered bogus, only the profit element should be added, following precedents set by the High Court of Bombay and the coordinate Bench.

Addition of Commission for Accommodation Entries:
The AO believed that the appellant must have paid a commission for arranging accommodation entries and added Rs. 278,435 as commission. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition as it was subsumed in the earlier addition related to alleged bogus purchases. The net profit shown by the assessee was 7.50%, leading the Tribunal to restrict the addition to 7.50% of the amount considered as bogus purchases and delete the rest.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the AO to restrict the addition related to alleged bogus purchases to the profit element and delete the excess amount. The addition of commission for accommodation entries was also directed to be deleted. The grounds challenging the reopening of the assessment were dismissed as not pressed.