2018 (2) TMI 2121 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - While relying upon Judgments Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , Simit D, Sheth 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries 2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus purchases, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met in case the additions are restricted @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases. Consequently orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and AO is directed to restrict the additions accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legitimacy of the addition of Rs. 84,18,995/- as unsubstantiated purchases.
2. Procedural fairness in confirming the addition based on affidavits without independent findings or opportunity for cross-examination.
3. Appropriateness of the assessment based on third-party information without further investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Legitimacy of the Addition of Rs. 84,18,995/- as Unsubstantiated Purchases

The primary issue revolves around whether the purchases amounting to Rs. 84,18,995/- from three parties were genuine or bogus. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these purchases, labeling them as bogus based on information from the Sales Tax Department, which indicated that these parties were involved in providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. The AO's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who noted the lack of supporting documentation such as confirmatory letters, lorry receipts, and other transport-related documents from the assessee. The CIT(A) emphasized that the mere payment through banking channels does not conclusively establish the genuineness of the transactions, especially when the supposed suppliers admitted in affidavits to not conducting any real business. The tribunal, however, considered the argument that the assessee had made payments through account payee cheques and had received the material used in manufacturing, suggesting that the purchases could not be entirely bogus. The tribunal concluded that while there was suspicion, the evidence did not support a complete disallowance, and thus, restricted the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases to account for the profit element embedded in these transactions.

Issue 2: Procedural Fairness in Confirming the Addition

The assessee challenged the procedural fairness of the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the addition was confirmed based on affidavits from alleged suppliers without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine these parties. The tribunal acknowledged this procedural lapse, noting that third-party information should not be the sole basis for disallowing purchases without further verification and opportunity for cross-examination. The tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need for the AO to conduct independent investigations rather than relying solely on the Sales Tax Department's findings.

Issue 3: Appropriateness of the Assessment Based on Third-Party Information

The tribunal scrutinized the reliance on third-party information by the AO without conducting further investigation. It was highlighted that while information from the Sales Tax Department can be a trigger for further inquiry, it cannot substitute for a thorough investigation by the AO. The tribunal referred to precedents where it was held that mere reliance on third-party statements is insufficient for making additions unless corroborated by independent evidence. The tribunal found that the AO's assessment was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence, leading to the decision to partially allow the appeal by restricting the additions to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.

Conclusion:

The tribunal's decision reflects a balanced approach, acknowledging the procedural shortcomings and the need for substantial evidence to support disallowances. By restricting the addition to 12.5%, the tribunal aimed to account for potential profit elements while recognizing the absence of conclusive evidence of bogus purchases. The appeal was thus partly allowed, providing partial relief to the assessee.