2022 (5) TMI 1642 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases managed through bogus bills - bogus dealers don't carry any business activity either by way of purchase or sale of goods , transactions are carried out by issuing bills to the intending purchasers without any transfer of goods - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - It is undisputed facts that the assessee is indulging in bogus billing activities and at the same time respectfully following the decision ofM/S MOHOMMAD HAJI ADAM CO. 2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where in it is held that the entire purchase amount of such bogus purchase cannot be added at best the addition limited to the extent of G. P. Rate on purchases at the same rate of the genuine purchase. On being asked about the computation of separate G. P. Rate of these two activities the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted a chart which requires the detailed verification and since the said analyses has not been so far placed by the assessee before lower authorities we restore the matter back to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to tax the appropriate rate of G. P. which the assessee has adopted for other genuine purchase and sale transactions with this remark the grounds of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. At the same time assessee is also directed to submit the correct and full details as may be required by the assessing officer in this matter. Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition related to bogus purchases.
2. Restriction of addition amount by the CIT(A).
3. Ignoring the statement of the assessee recorded u/s 131.
4. Justification of deletion of addition by CIT(A).
5. Acceptance of fresh evidence without AO's examination.
6. Acceptance of sales while treating purchases as bogus.
7. Nexus between the conclusion of fact and primary fact.
8. Erroneous order of CIT(A).
9. Any other grounds.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Deletion of Addition Related to Bogus Purchases:
The revenue questioned whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting Rs. 3,68,22,775 out of the total addition of Rs. 4,18,44,062, arguing that the purchases were managed through bogus bills.

2. Restriction of Addition Amount by the CIT(A):
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to Rs. 50,21,287 out of Rs. 4,18,44,062, contending that no actual purchases were made from bogus dealers and the transactions were colored as genuine through immediate cash withdrawals.

3. Ignoring the Statement of the Assessee Recorded u/s 131:
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) ignored the assessee's statement recorded on oath u/s 131, where the assessee admitted to making bogus purchases from dummy concerns.

4. Justification of Deletion of Addition by CIT(A):
The revenue contended that the CIT(A), having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 254(4), was unjustified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,68,22,775 as the assessee could not substantiate the transactions as genuine with documentary evidence.

5. Acceptance of Fresh Evidence Without AO's Examination:
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence without allowing the AO proper opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A of IT Rules.

6. Acceptance of Sales While Treating Purchases as Bogus:
The revenue questioned the CIT(A)'s finding that sales were accepted by the AO, thus purchases could not be treated as bogus, despite evidence that the alleged concerns provided bogus bills only in lieu of commission.

7. Nexus Between the Conclusion of Fact and Primary Fact:
The revenue claimed that the CIT(A) erred in law by holding the decision in favor of the assessee without a nexus between the conclusion of fact and primary fact.

8. Erroneous Order of CIT(A):
The revenue argued that the order of the CIT(A) was erroneous both in law and on facts.

9. Any Other Grounds:
Additional grounds could be adduced at the time of hearing.

Findings and Conclusion:
The Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the assessee was involved in bogus billing activities. However, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Mohmmad Haji Adam & Co., the Tribunal held that the entire purchase amount should not be added. Instead, the addition should be limited to the extent of the Gross Profit (G.P.) rate on purchases at the same rate as genuine purchases. The Tribunal restored the matter to the assessing officer to tax the appropriate G.P. rate on these transactions and directed the assessee to submit the correct and full details required by the assessing officer.

Order:
The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in open court on 31st May 2022.