2012 (7) TMI 219 - HC - Income Tax

Alleged bogus purchases on ground of discrepancies in mentioning vehicles nos. on gate pass - question of fact decided in favor of assessee by Tribunal - Held that - Revenue could not point out any perversity in the finding of Tribunal that production and the sales have not been doubted. Payments were made to the concerned parties through cheque and the delivery of goods was duly taken from the concerned traders. It was also noted that the assessee had adopted the proper procedure for receiving the goods supported by the gate-pass and goods were subject to lab testing, weighment etc. and they were duly recorded in the stock register. The payments were made by account payee cheque which were deposited in the Bank. Thus the issue which Revenue is raising in respect of bogus nature of purchase, is concluded against the Revenue by the finding of fact which has been noted above. The appeal does not involve any question of law and is accordingly dismissed - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
Validity of purchases made by respondent from certain parties for the assessment year 1992-93.

Analysis:
1. The respondent-Company derived income from manufacturing Soyabeen oil. The assessing officer found the purchases of Soya seed from specific parties to be bogus, leading to an addition of Rs. 84,25,342/- in the assessment. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-II) set aside this finding, holding the purchases as genuine. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the purchases were not bogus.

2. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting the purchases as genuine and claimed that the assessee should have been required to prove the source of purchase. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of authenticity of purchases and the need to establish the source of purchase.

3. The High Court noted that the authenticity of purchases was a factual matter. Both the Commissioner and ITAT extensively examined the issue, considering all relevant circumstances and evidence on record. The Commissioner specifically highlighted discrepancies in the assessing officer's findings regarding vehicle numbers and emphasized the lack of concrete evidence to support the allegation of bogus purchases.

4. The Commissioner's detailed analysis revealed that the purchases from the concerned parties were only doubted to a limited extent, considering the overall purchases made by the appellant. The Department's belief in the existence of these parties and the lack of collusion between the appellant and the suppliers were crucial factors in determining the authenticity of the purchases.

5. The Tribunal re-evaluated the circumstances and affirmed the findings of the Commissioner. It emphasized that the production and sales by the assessee were not in question, payments were made through cheques, goods were received with proper documentation, and the entire process was meticulously recorded. The Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural correctness followed by the appellant in the purchase transactions.

6. The High Court observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate any flaw in the factual findings of the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The issue of the alleged bogus purchases was conclusively settled by the consistent findings of fact.

7. The appellant also contested the Tribunal's stance that the source of purchase did not need to be proven. However, the High Court noted that the appellant had sufficiently established the source of purchase from the concerned parties, and the Tribunal's view on not requiring proof of the source of source was upheld.

8. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the questions raised by the appellant regarding the authenticity of purchases and the need to prove the source of purchase were already addressed and settled by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. As no legal issues were found to be involved, the appeal was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the thorough examination of the authenticity of purchases, the procedural correctness followed by the appellant, and the conclusive findings of fact by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →