9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 368 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases - Addition under section 69C - estimating G.P. @ 25% - Held that - The addition at the rate of 4% would be reasonable and justified in the present circumstances while upholding the rejection of books of accounts. Accordingly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is modified as above and the AO is directed accordingly. Reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 - Held that - We find that the reopening was based on valid reasons as the AO has received information from the Sales Tax Department, GOM and there was no doubt that the assessee was availing bogus entries for purchases from four parties as stated herein above without purchasing any actual material. Only thereafter recording due satisfaction, the AO reopened the case u/s 147/148 of the Act. Under we are of the considered view that the reopening in such circumstances is quite valid as there were several reasons to justify the reopening. Accordingly, ground of reopening of the assessment taken by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of disallowance of purchase. 2. Rejection of books of account. 3. Validity of reopening proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Grounds of appeal by the revenue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Disallowance of Purchase: The assessee contested the confirmation of disallowance of ?39,07,412 by estimating G.P. at 25% of the alleged bogus purchases amounting to ?1,56,29,649. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding hawala operators. The AO concluded that the purchases from the parties were not genuine and added the amount to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that the GP rate had significantly decreased from 6.12% to 4%, indicating suppressed taxable profit. The CIT(A) upheld a 25% disallowance of the bogus purchases, amounting to ?39,07,412, while providing relief for the remaining amount. 2. Rejection of Books of Account: The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) due to the failure to furnish quantitative details of purchases, sales, and closing stock. The CIT(A) found it reasonable to sustain the addition to the extent of 25% of the bogus purchases towards estimated GP. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee made payments through banking channels, recorded corresponding sales, and maintained a stock register. The Tribunal concluded that the GP addition made by the CIT(A) was on the higher side and reduced it to 4%, following the decision in the case of DCIT Vs Shri Shivankar R. Sharma. 3. Validity of Reopening Proceedings under Section 147: The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148. The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on valid reasons, as the AO had received credible information from the Sales Tax Department about bogus purchase entries. The AO recorded due satisfaction before reopening the case. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening, dismissing the assessee's ground on this issue. 4. Grounds of Appeal by the Revenue: The revenue's appeal contested the CIT(A)'s reliance on certain judicial decisions and the partial relief granted to the assessee. The revenue argued for a 100% addition of bogus purchases, citing the ITAT, Pune's decision in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. The Tribunal, however, found that the facts of the assessee's case were covered by previous decisions that supported a lower addition rate. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, maintaining the partial relief granted to the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal provided partial relief to the assessee by reducing the GP addition rate to 4% and upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to provide relief for the majority of the bogus purchase amount while sustaining a reasonable disallowance. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 30th June 2017.
|
