2017 (10) TMI 162 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - estimation of profit - Held that - The assessee has not furnished documents like delivery challans, transport receipts, stock register etc. to prove the transportation of material from the place of the impugned suppliers to the place of assessee. As noticed that the assessee has also failed to furnish confirmation letters obtained from the suppliers in order to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Since the assessee has reconciled the purchases with sales, tax authorities have presumed that the assessee would have sourced material from some other source and have accordingly estimated the profit element embedded therein. The Assessing Officer had estimated the profit at 12.5% which was reduced to 6.5% by the learned CIT(A). In the facts and circumstances of the case, estimate of 6.5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases is reasonable and hence decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition relating to bogus purchases
- Estimation of profit percentage
- Reconciliation of purchases and sales
- Documentation to prove genuineness of purchases

Analysis:
1. Addition relating to bogus purchases: The case involved the appeal against the decision of the CIT(A) partially confirming the addition related to bogus purchases made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information from the Sales Tax Department regarding traders issuing accommodation bills without actual supply of materials. The AO assessed 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases as taxable profit. The CIT(A) reduced this to 6.5% considering the VAT rate applicable to the assessee and estimated margin in the trade. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, deeming the 6.5% estimate reasonable.

2. Estimation of profit percentage: The assessee contended that the 6.5% profit estimate by the CIT(A) was on the higher side compared to the declared gross profit of 4.98% and the VAT paid subsequently. The Department argued that the 6.5% addition was justified due to purchases from hawala dealers and lack of documentation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found the 6.5% estimation reasonable given the circumstances and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

3. Reconciliation of purchases and sales: The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) noted that while the assessee reconciled purchases with sales, essential documents like delivery challans, transport receipts, and supplier confirmation letters were not provided to prove the genuineness of purchases. Despite the reconciliation, the tax authorities estimated the profit element embedded in the purchases, leading to the 6.5% addition upheld by the Tribunal.

4. Documentation to prove genuineness of purchases: The failure to furnish crucial documents such as delivery challans, transport receipts, and supplier confirmation letters to establish the authenticity of purchases played a significant role in the decision-making process. The absence of these documents led the tax authorities to estimate the profit element in the purchases, ultimately resulting in the upheld addition of 6.5% by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6.5% of the value of bogus purchases. The lack of essential documentation and the reconciliation of purchases with sales were key factors in determining the reasonableness of the profit estimation.