9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 26 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - bogus purchases - addition @ 6% of bogus purchases - HELD THAT - We find that issue under consideration is covered by the decision of Pankaj K. Chaudhary 2021 (10) TMI 653 - ITAT SURAT wherein the Tribunal has sustained the addition @ 6% of bogus purchases.14 appeals were decided by ITAT in this order where the lead case was Pankaj K. Chaudhary (supra) Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Pankaj K. Choudhary (supra) and assessee s own case (supra) and since there is no change in facts; therefore, respectfully following above decisions, we confirm the addition @ 6% of bogus purchases. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of restricting additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, the genuineness of transactions with concerns identified as bogus entities, consideration of relevant case laws, and the burden of proof on the assessee to establish the genuineness of transactions. Details of the Judgment: 1. Restriction of Additions by CIT(A): The appeal by the Revenue was against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer from Rs. 4,32,12,386 to Rs. 1,03,70,972, being 6% of the bogus purchase. The CIT(A) restricted the addition based on the facts that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transactions with concerns identified as bogus entities controlled by Shri Bhanwerlal Jain. 2. Consideration of Case Laws: The CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition without considering judgments such as the one by the Gujarat High Court in N.K. Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, where it was held that 100% of purchases from bogus parties should be added to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal, which held that entire amounts of bogus expenditure should be added to the income of the assessee. 3. Assessment and Reopening of Case: The case involved the assessee engaged in the business of import, export, trading, and manufacturing of diamonds. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,32,12,386, being 25% of the total purchase, under section 69C of the Act. The case was reopened u/s 147, and during a search and seizure action, it was found that the assessee had obtained bogus purchases from concerns controlled by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group. 4. Judicial Decisions and Tribunal's Ruling: The ITAT, Surat, in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, had previously restricted the addition to 6% of bogus purchases. The Tribunal upheld this decision in the present case, citing consistency with previous rulings. The Tribunal confirmed the addition at 6% of bogus purchases, based on the precedents and lack of change in facts. 5. Arguments and Decision: The Revenue argued for upholding the Assessing Officer's decision of 25% addition, emphasizing the onus on the assessee to prove the genuineness of transactions. However, the Tribunal, after considering the precedents and lack of change in facts, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and confirmed the addition at 6% of bogus purchases. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of bogus purchases based on relevant case laws and consistent judicial decisions, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
|
