2018 (11) TMI 997 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - estimation of income - Held that - It is quite just and fair to estimate the probable inflation in cost of purchase to artificially reduce probable profits for the purposes of taxation. The CIT(A) has made such estimations at 20% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. Keeping in mind the total absence of direct evidences to support the purchases, we are of the opinion that such estimations are quite low. The assessee is engaged in construction activity where the profits vary widely and are not generally comparable. Taking guidance from the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 828 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) the fair estimate in our view would be 25% of the alleged bogus transactions, profits to which extent is deemed to be suppressed. Therefore, we consider it expedient to modify the estimation made by the CIT(A) to 25% in place of 20%. - Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
Revenue's challenge against deletion of additions on account of alleged bogus purchases, CIT(A)'s decision to estimate disallowance at 20% of alleged bogus purchases, and the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Revenue's Challenge Against Deletion of Additions:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions of ?90,24,206 out of a total addition of ?1,12,80,256 made on account of alleged bogus purchases. The AO had observed discrepancies in the details provided by the assessee and found that some creditors denied transactions. The AO concluded that the claimed purchases were unsubstantiated and bogus, leading to the addition. The CIT(A) upheld a disallowance of ?22,56,051 but deleted the remaining amount, citing various decisions and estimating a 20% disallowance due to overstatement of purchase costs.

Issue 2: CIT(A)'s Decision to Estimate Disallowance at 20%:
The CIT(A) justified the 20% disallowance by considering the GP rate, acceptance of work in progress by the AO, and various tribunal decisions. The Revenue argued against this estimation, claiming the CIT(A) erred in not disallowing the entire bogus purchase amount. The Tribunal noted the lack of direct evidence supporting the purchases and the reliance on a valuation report by the assessee. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal modified the estimation to 25% of the alleged bogus transactions, aligning with the fair estimate principle from relevant court decisions.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision on Appeal:
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the assessee's cross objection. It emphasized the need for fair estimation due to the absence of direct evidence, leading to the modification of the disallowance percentage. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties based on the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring a just and reasonable outcome.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments presented by the parties, the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, and the rationale behind the final judgment.