9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 480 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made on account of bogus purchases - Disallowance to the tune of Rs. 13,19,645/- - Held that - Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd Vs ACIT 1996 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C where the assessee had failed to produce the alleged suppliers, brokers and transporters or any other evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions purchases, co-ordinate bench of Hon ble Tribunal had held the purchases to be bogus and 25% of the purchase amount was disallowed. In the present case, facts are identical to that of Vijay Proteins 1996 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C - Assessee has not furnished the names, addresses of suppliers or brokers nor has it furnished the relevant evidences called for by the Assessing Officer and thus could not discharge of the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases - Directed the disallowance to 25% of purchases instead of the total purchases made by the AO.
Issues:
Appeals filed by Revenue against CIT(A) order for assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 regarding deletion of addition made on account of bogus purchases. Analysis: 1. Background: The appeals were filed by Revenue against the order of CIT(A) Valsad, Gujarat for assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The issue pertained to the addition of Rs 13,19,645 made on account of bogus purchases by the Assessee. 2. Original Assessment: The Assessee, a pharmaceutical products manufacturing company, had made purchases from three parties totaling Rs 13,19,645. The AO considered these purchases as bogus based on the statement of the Director of Rizvi & Co. who controlled the affairs of the sellers. The AO held that the Assessee failed to provide genuine evidence to justify the purchases. 3. CIT(A) Order: The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee by emphasizing that the AO did not follow the specific directions of ITAT, which included allowing cross-examination of the concerned parties. The CIT(A) concluded that the additions made on account of bogus purchases should be deleted due to procedural lapses by the AO. 4. Appeal Before ITAT: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order before ITAT. The Revenue argued that the purchases were unverifiable as the sellers admitted to issuing bogus bills. However, the Assessee failed to provide updated addresses and ledger extracts as requested by the AO. 5. ITAT Decision: ITAT referred to previous directions given in a similar case and held that the Assessee should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine the parties involved in the purchases. Since the Assessee was not able to provide necessary details, ITAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeal by directing a 25% disallowance of the purchases instead of the total amount. 6. Precedent and Conclusion: ITAT relied on a previous case where purchases were deemed bogus due to the Assessee's failure to provide essential evidence. Considering the lack of evidence and failure to meet the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases, ITAT partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for all the assessment years in question. 7. Final Decision: The ITAT pronounced the order on 27-08-2013, partly allowing all the appeals of the Revenue regarding the addition made on account of bogus purchases for assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000.
|
