9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1124 - AT - Income TaxAddition made u/s. 69C - bogus purchases - Held that - We are of the considered view that as the assessee before us had miserably failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchase transactions. We thus in the totality of the facts involved in the case of the present assessee are thus of the considered view that the CIT(A) by restricting the addition to the extent of 5% of the aggregate value of the bogus purchases had thus taken a liberal view and restricted the addition to the extent of 10, 59, 058/- We thus finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) therefore uphold the same.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of purchases as bogus. 3. Charging of interest under Section 234 and initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 148: The assessee contended that the reopening of the assessment was based merely on a change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction, done after a gap of four years. The CIT(A) dismissed this ground raised by the appellant. The Tribunal did not find merit in the assessee's argument and upheld the reopening of the assessment, noting that the Assessing Officer (A.O) had received specific information from the Sales Tax Department about the assessee taking accommodation entries of bogus purchases. 2. Disallowance of Purchases as Bogus: The A.O disallowed ?26,47,645 out of total purchases of ?2,11,81,156 based on information from the Sales Tax Department that certain suppliers were providing bogus bills. The assessee failed to produce supporting documents like delivery challans, lorry receipts, and transportation details to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. The A.O concluded that the assessee had made purchases from the open/grey market and procured bogus bills to route the transactions through its books. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 5% of the total purchases, amounting to ?10,59,058, considering it a fair estimation of the benefit derived from the bogus transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, emphasizing that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the purchase transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate the delivery of goods. The reliance placed by the assessee on various judgments was found to be distinguishable on facts, as the assessee did not provide confirmation letters from suppliers or copies of invoices. 3. Charging of Interest under Section 234 and Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee contended against the charging of interest under Section 234 and the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). However, the Tribunal did not find any merit in these contentions, as the primary issue of bogus purchases had been upheld. Therefore, the consequential actions of charging interest and initiating penalty were deemed appropriate. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the addition to 5% of the aggregate value of the bogus purchases, amounting to ?10,59,058. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order and maintained that the assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchase transactions. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2017.
|
