9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 494 - AT - Income TaxGP determination - low in the G.P. rates - estimation of purchases - Held that - It is seen that the learned CIT(A) noticed that in respect of these transactions, i.e. purchases of ₹ 70,60,756/- the assessee had shown G.P. of 0.68% on sale of items purchased from M/s. Crystal Enterprises and G.P. of 1.19% on sale of items purchased from M/s. Induja Traders Pvt. Ltd. Stating that, inter alia, the assessee had not given his overall G.P. ratio, the learned CIT(A) proceeded to hold, on estimate, that 25% of the purchases amounting to ₹ 70,60,756/- i.e. R.17,65,189/- is to be brought to tax in assessee s hands. We find that this averment of the learned CIT(A) to be factually incorrect. In our view, when the G.P. of the assessee from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010- 11 hovered between 1.11% to 0.76% and the G.P. on sale of the said purchases is 0.68% and 1.19%, nothing appears abnormally low in the G.P. rates. There is no basis whatsoever for the learned CIT(A) to have estimated the said purchases at ₹ 17,65,189/- (i.e. 25% of ₹ 70,60,756/-) and neither has the learned CIT(A) rendered any cogent reasons for coming to the said finding. In our view, the learned CIT(A) s estimation that 25% of the alleged purchases of ₹ 70,60,756/- is profit therefrom, be taxed as income of the assessee, is unsustainable and therefore delete the same. Consequently, ground of assessee s appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of purchases from M/s. Crystal Enterprises and M/s. Induja Traders Pvt. Ltd. 2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) and Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The applicability of precedents and judicial pronouncements. Detailed Analysis: 1. Genuineness of Purchases: The primary issue revolves around the genuineness of purchases amounting to ?70,60,756/- made by the assessee from M/s. Crystal Enterprises and M/s. Induja Traders Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these purchases based on information from the Sales Tax authorities, which indicated that these firms were involved in issuing bills without delivering materials. The AO's decision was influenced by the inability of the assessee to produce the parties and relied on the affidavit of Shri Ramachandra Kore from M/s. Crystal Enterprises. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's decision but reduced the disallowance to 25% of the purchase value, citing Section 69C instead of Section 40A(3). The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee had provided purchase bills, bank statements, and ledger accounts to substantiate the transactions. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd., which held that purchases could not be deemed bogus merely because suppliers did not appear before the AO, especially when payments were made through banking channels. 2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) and Section 69C: The AO initially disallowed the entire purchase amount under Section 40A(3), which pertains to payments made in cash exceeding a specified limit. However, the CIT(A) corrected this to Section 69C, which deals with unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on third-party statements without corroborative evidence was insufficient to disprove the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not provide evidence that cash had flowed back to the assessee or that the purchase bills were bogus. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the entire addition made by the AO should be deleted. 3. Applicability of Precedents and Judicial Pronouncements: The Tribunal cited several judicial pronouncements to support its decision. It referred to the case of Ramila Pravin Shah and other similar cases where the Tribunal had held that additions based solely on third-party statements without further investigation were unjustified. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% of the purchases as taxable income lacked a factual basis and was not supported by cogent reasons. The Tribunal highlighted that the Gross Profit (G.P.) ratios provided by the assessee for the relevant years were consistent and did not indicate any abnormality. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition of ?70,60,756/- was unsustainable and directed its deletion. The Tribunal found no basis for the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance and allowed the assessee's appeal while dismissing the Revenue's cross-appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of corroborative evidence and adherence to judicial precedents in tax assessments.
|
