9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 228 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - bogus purchases - CIT(A) restricted addition of the gross profit @4% as against 12.5% determined by AO - HELD THAT - As in V. Jiwani 2022 (10) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that in cases involving bogus purchases only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be treated as the income of the assessee. CIT(A) accordingly adopted a gross profit rate of 4% respectfully following the rulings of Mohammad Haji Adam Co. 2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . These decisions of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court are binding upon us. We respectfully follow the direction supra no infirmity in the impugned appellate order.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue in this case revolves around the treatment of alleged bogus purchases by the assessee and the appropriate rate of gross profit to be applied to such purchases. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the entire amount of the alleged bogus purchases should be disallowed or if only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The relevant legal framework involves the application of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly sections related to the assessment of income and the treatment of non-genuine purchases. Precedents from various judicial pronouncements were considered, including the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the cases of PCIT Vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. and PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani. These cases established that in instances where sales are not disputed, the addition on account of bogus purchases should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases rather than the entire purchase amount. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal interpreted the legal framework and precedents to mean that only the profit element in the alleged bogus purchases should be treated as the income of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., where it was held that when sales are not disputed, the addition should be restricted to the difference between the gross profit declared on genuine purchases and non-genuine purchases. Key Evidence and Findings The Tribunal noted that the Maharashtra Sales-tax Department provided information indicating that the assessee engaged in bogus purchases, with false bills issued without the delivery of goods. The Assessing Officer (AO) added back a gross profit of 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases. However, the CIT(A) restricted this addition to a gross profit of 4%, considering judicial pronouncements and the fact that sales were declared by the assessee. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the law by considering the precedents set by the Bombay High Court, which emphasized that only the profit element should be added back to the income. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a 4% gross profit rate, as it aligned with the legal principles established in the relevant cases. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Tribunal evaluated arguments from both the revenue and the assessee. The revenue argued for a 12.5% gross profit rate, while the assessee cited precedents that supported a lower rate. The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments more compelling, given the binding nature of the Bombay High Court's decisions. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) correctly applied a gross profit rate of 4% to the alleged bogus purchases, in line with the legal precedents. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the appellate order and dismissed the revenue's appeal. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning The Tribunal reiterated the CIT(A)'s reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., which stated: "in case where the sales are not disputed then the addition on account of bogus purchases is to be restricted to the difference between the Gross Profit declared in the case of genuine purchases and non-genuine purchase." Core Principles Established The core principle established is that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be treated as the income of the assessee, particularly when sales are not disputed. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a 4% gross profit rate was appropriate and in accordance with binding judicial precedents. Consequently, both appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
|
