9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 739 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - GP ratio - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of expenses debited towards purchases u/s 40A(3) - Cash payment in excess of ₹ 10000/- - CIT(A) harboured a belief that total purchases made from these three concerns deserves to be treated as bogus and a disallowance is to be made. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out to us that if these purchases are being treated as bogus, then almost 40% of the purchases would be wiped out from the total purchases, and if that be so, then how the assessee would achieve the sale target accepted by the AO. Held that - on the total turnover including the alleged bogus purchases, the assessee has already shown GP at the rate of 14.27%. If we further estimate 5% to 6% more than the GP on the total turnover including the alleged bogus purchase would be more than 20%. This will meet ends of justice. Levy of penalty - Held that - on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it has been concluded that the purchases made by the assessee to some extent are non-genuine, and therefore profit element involved in such purchases deserves to be assessed as income of the assessee. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court we allow this appeal of the assessee and delete the penalty.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses debited towards purchases. 2. Enhancement of income by the CIT(A). 3. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Expenses Debited Towards Purchases: The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of ceramic glaze mixture and filed a return declaring an income of ?7,89,630/-. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) found outstanding liabilities against three entities from which purchases were made. The AO disallowed payments exceeding ?20,000/- made in cash under section 40A(3), resulting in an addition of ?28,01,631/-. The AO determined the taxable income at ?39,87,513/- against the returned income. The CIT(A) treated the purchases from Maharaja Minerals & Traders, Balaji Grinding Mills, and Natural Traders as bogus, disallowing the corresponding purchase costs and making an addition of ?2,08,06,760/-. The CIT(A) also disallowed ?3,15,000/- related to Ricasil Ceramic Industries P. Ltd. due to non-response to the AO's notice. 2. Enhancement of Income by the CIT(A): The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine, supported by documentary evidence including purchase ledgers, bills, and quantitative details. The CIT(A) believed that the purchases from the three concerns were bogus, leading to a significant addition. The assessee argued that if these purchases were bogus, it would be impossible to achieve the accepted sales target, suggesting an ad-hoc disallowance of 5% of the total purchases. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, noting that the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases with plausible evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 5% on the alleged bogus purchases amounting to ?2,08,06,760/- and make the addition accordingly. For the disallowance of ?3.15 lakhs, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit on these purchases as well. 3. Imposition of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The AO did not initially impose any penalty, but the CIT(A) imposed a penalty of ?70,72,217/- under section 271(1)(c) after enhancing the income. The assessee referred to a Gujarat High Court judgment in a similar case where the penalty was deleted because the income was estimated, and no penalty was imposable on such estimation. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on circumstantial evidence, and the purchases were treated as non-genuine to some extent. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed by the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of expenses and enhancement of income, directing an estimation of net profit at 5% on the alleged bogus purchases. The penalty appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The judgment was pronounced on 10th October 2018 at Ahmedabad.
|
