2015 (10) TMI 1014 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - Tribunal came to the conclusion that the purchases made from the four parties were genuine whereas both the AO and the CIT(A) had come to the conclusion otherwise - Held that - Tribunal in the impugned order has considered various evidences in the form of Sales Tax Registration Certificate and the PAN number of the parties, copies of the purchase invoices, quantitative utilization of its purchases corresponding to the export made out of these purchases produced before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in his order of assessment has not examined any of these evidences but has merely proceeded on the basis that in spite of notice as issued, the Respondent had not complied with the same. This has been negatived by the order of the CIT(A) and this finding not been accepted by the Revenue as it has not challenged it before the Tribunal. Besides, the order of the Assessing Officer itself records the fact that the Chartered Accountant of the Respondent did attend the office of the Assessing Officer for a hearing on 12th February, 2009 and the same was adjourned to 26th February, 2009. Thereafter, again attended on 22nd October, 2009. The finding rendered by the Tribunal on the appraisal of the evidence led by the Respondent-Assessee before the authorities, is possible view. This finding has not been shown perverse and/or arbitrary in any manner. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2003-04 regarding the genuineness of purchases made by the Respondent-Assessee.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Purchases:
The Assessing Officer disallowed purchases of Rs. 82.84 lakhs due to failure to produce parties and inability to locate them. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, rejecting additional evidence. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence and decide on the genuineness of the purchases.

2. Assessing Officer's Decision:
The Assessing Officer, upon remand, upheld the disallowance solely based on compliance with hearing notices, without examining evidence proving the purchases' genuineness. This led to the purchases being deemed bogus, resulting in a reassessment of the Assessee's total income.

3. CIT(A) Decision:
The CIT(A), upon further appeal, partially allowed the Assessee's appeal, considering evidence ignored by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was allowed for 75% of the disputed purchases, emphasizing the necessity of purchases for sales to occur.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
Both the Revenue and the Assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to examine evidence presented by the Assessee, which included bank statements of payments made through account payee cheques, sales tax registration certificates, and purchase invoices. The Tribunal concluded that the purchases were genuine, as evidenced by the documents provided.

5. High Court's Decision:
The High Court noted that the Tribunal thoroughly considered various pieces of evidence, including sales tax registration certificates and purchase invoices, which the Assessing Officer had not examined. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings were based on a reasonable appraisal of the evidence and were not arbitrary or perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the proposed question did not raise any substantial legal issue.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming the genuineness of the purchases made by the Respondent-Assessee and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.