2016 (6) TMI 293 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - investigation conducted by the Sales Tax Department - CIT(A) was of the view that the estimation of profit on such bogus purchases has to be made @ 10.41% instead of 12.5% adopted by the AO - Held that - The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings has produced documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is also not disputed that the Assessing Officer has accepted the sales turnover disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, unless, the assessee had made purchases he could not have effected corresponding sales. Therefore, before treating the purchases made by the assessee as bogus, the Assessing Officer should have conducted necessary enquiry keeping in view the aforesaid fact. Without conducting any enquiry, the Assessing Officer solely relying upon the investigation made by the Sales Tax Department cannot make the addition, that too, on the basis of untested material. Therefore, we are of the view, the addition made on account of estimation of profit by treating the purchases as bogus has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
Ad-hoc addition of ?2,84,082 sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2009-10 based on alleged bogus purchases.

Analysis:
The assessment involved a partnership firm engaged in wholesale and retail trading of cotton waste, chindi waste, and rags waste. The Assessing Officer identified certain purchases as bogus based on information from the Sales Tax Department, indicating accommodation bills provided by specific entities. The purchases in question amounted to ?27,28,934, and the Assessing Officer estimated profits at 12.5% on this turnover, resulting in an addition of ?3,41,117. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the bogus purchase characterization but reduced the profit estimation to 10.41%.

The firm contended that it provided all necessary documentation to prove the genuineness of the purchases, including ledger accounts, bills, and bank statements. The firm argued that the Assessing Officer did not conduct an independent investigation and relied solely on information from the Sales Tax Department. The firm emphasized that without corresponding purchases, sales could not have occurred, and absence of transportation bills alone should not deem purchases as bogus. The firm cited precedents where similar additions were deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the firm did not admit to any reasonable addition on the alleged bogus purchases during the assessment proceedings. It noted the lack of independent inquiry by the Assessing Officer and reliance on untested material from the Sales Tax Department without allowing the firm to contest or cross-examine the adverse evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the necessity for the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of purchases before making additions. As the firm had provided evidence of the purchases' authenticity and the sales turnover was accepted, the Tribunal concluded that the addition based on bogus purchases lacked a valid foundation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the firm's appeal and deleted the addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of due process and independent verification in assessing alleged bogus purchases. The decision highlighted the need for substantiated evidence and proper inquiry before making additions based on untested material.