9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1489 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 68 with regard to bogus purchases - CIT-A reducing part addition - none of the party has replied in response to the notice u/s 133(6) - Held that - The reply from parties was duly filed before the AO prior to the completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. But the AO has not considered the same during the assessment proceedings. Similarly, the AO has not commented anything negative about the reply filed during the remand proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of any defect as pointed out by the AO, we are inclined not to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). The provision of Section 68 can be attracted if there is any sum found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee. There was no cash received by the assessee from the aforesaid parties. The accounts of the parties were credited by the assessee for purchases made from them. Therefore, in our considered view the provision of Section 68 cannot be applied to the case on hand. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in reducing the addition made by the AO under section 68 regarding bogus purchases. 2. Validity of the purchases made from A Star Jewellery. 3. Validity of the purchases made from Shree Mahavir Jewellers. 4. Application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reduction of Addition by CIT(A): The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in limiting the disallowance made by the AO from ?39,72,198/- to ?1,55,020/-. The AO had initially treated the purchases from Shree Mahavir Jewellers and A Star Jewellery as bogus and added the amount to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A), however, reduced this addition significantly, which led to the Revenue's appeal. 2. Purchases from A Star Jewellery: The assessee provided evidence that A Star Jewellery responded to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The AO acknowledged the reply but disregarded it during the assessment. The CIT(A) noted that the purchases from A Star Jewellery were made through account payee cheques and were supported by proper VAT and CST TIN numbers. The CIT(A) concluded that the transactions with A Star Jewellery were genuine, and thus, the disallowance by the AO was incorrect and deleted. 3. Purchases from Shree Mahavir Jewellers: The AO found several discrepancies with the purchases from Shree Mahavir Jewellers, including handwritten bills without signatures and the cancellation of VAT registration. The CIT(A) observed that while the purchases from Shree Mahavir Jewellers were not fully verifiable, the sales made to the same party were accepted by the AO. The CIT(A) applied a profit element of 12.5% to the purchases from Shree Mahavir Jewellers, resulting in a disallowance of ?1,55,020/-, and granted relief for the balance amount. 4. Application of Section 68: The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained cash credits, was not applicable in this case. The purchases were recorded in the books of accounts, and there was no cash received by the assessee from the parties. The Tribunal cited the Allahabad High Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Pancham Dass Jain, which stated that Section 68 cannot be applied to purchases made on credit. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO did not find any defects in the reply filed by A Star Jewellery and accepted the sales made to Shree Mahavir Jewellers. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a profit element of 12.5% to the purchases from Shree Mahavir Jewellers and found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
|
