2017 (11) TMI 192 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made u/s. 69C - bogus purchases - Held that - Only in respect of the two parties namely M/s. Disha Transport Co. and M/s. D.K. Enterprises it is the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee could not furnish any iota of evidence to show that the purchases made from the parties are genuine, no confirmations, copies of income tax returns, no purchase invoices etc., have been furnished. Therefore, he sustained the disallowance in respect of these two concerns. The action of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of purchases from these two parties is upheld. No inference is called for in so far as the decision taken by the Ld.CIT(A) that the purchases cannot be treated as bogus/non-genuine, in respect of the parties/suppliers namely M/s. Siddhi Enterprises, M/s Devchaya Trading Co. and M/s. D.C. Corporation as the assessee produced confirmations from these parties Income Tax returns, VAT returns etc., and the Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions taking note of the fact that the assessee s name is not appearing in the list of beneficiaries to whom the parties have provided accommodation entries as deposed in the statements - Decided partly in favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
Appeal by Revenue against deletion of addition u/s. 69C for bogus purchases; Assessee's challenge to disallowance u/s. 69C for bogus purchases.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions u/s. 69C for bogus purchases from various parties, while the Assessee challenged the disallowance for the same reason. The survey revealed non-genuine purchases from Kapasi family, leading to re-opening of assessments for the relevant years.

2. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the purchases made from Siddhi Enterprises, Devchaya Trading Co., D.C. Corporation, Disha Transport Co., and D.K. Enterprises. Statements from Kapasi family members admitted providing accommodation entries, raising suspicions about the genuineness of purchases.

3. The Assessee argued purchases were genuine, supported by cheque payments and affidavits retracting earlier statements. However, the Assessing Officer rejected these claims due to lack of supporting documents like delivery challans, lorry receipts, and stock registers.

4. The Ld.CIT(A) considered additional evidence submitted by the Assessee, including confirmations and tax returns of suppliers. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted additions for purchases from Siddhi Enterprises, Devchaya Trading Co., and D.C. Corporation, but upheld disallowance for purchases from Disha Transport Co. and D.K. Enterprises for one year.

5. The Revenue contended that the Assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, citing absence of consumption records and supporting documents. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld disallowance for Disha Transport Co. and D.K. Enterprises due to lack of evidence.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed Revenue's appeals and dismissed the Assessee's appeal. It directed a 4% disallowance for purchases from Siddhi Enterprises, Devchaya Trading Co., and D.C. Corporation to address revenue leakage, considering the nature of the Assessee's business and lack of supporting documentation.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made by the authorities involved in the case regarding the disputed additions u/s. 69C for bogus purchases.