2019 (2) TMI 112 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of bogus purchases - Held that - It is not in dispute that the purchases of the assessee are not fully verifiable. The book result of the assessee is not reliable and therefore, the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the book result of the assessee. However, keeping in view the above comparable cases which were assessed by the department, it is equally difficult to sustain the assessment made by the revenue. DR could not dispute the fact that the above named persons were engaged in same line of business in which the assessee was engaged in. Therefore, going by the percentage of income assessed in their case ranging from 0.12% to 0.49%, it cannot be believed without cogent material that the assessee could have earned income of 12.33% of its turnover. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the highest rate of net profit assessed in comparable case for the year under consideration is 0.49% of the turnover. In order to considered opinion it shall be fair and in the interest of justice that the AO is directed to take assessee s net income at 0.49% of its turnover. Direct AO to recompute the assessee s income. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases amounting to ?5,20,15,994/-.
2. Verification of purchases and the response to summons issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Maintenance of books of account and stock register.
4. Reliability of self-made bills and affidavits.
5. Comparison of the assessee’s net profit percentage with other comparable cases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The primary issue in this appeal was the disallowance of ?5,20,15,994/- as alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee made purchases of raw meat from 15 parties, but most of these parties did not respond to the summons issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. The AO concluded that the purchases were bogus due to the lack of credible evidence and discrepancies in the books of account, such as self-made bills and unsigned invoices. The AO added the amount of ?5,20,15,994/- to the income of the assessee.

2. Verification of Purchases and Response to Summons:
The AO issued summons to 15 parties, but only one party, Raju s/o Kalava, responded and denied any business transaction with the assessee. The AO noted that the other parties either did not respond or the summons were returned unserved. The AO found that the assessee failed to produce these parties for recording their statements, which led to the conclusion that the purchases were bogus.

3. Maintenance of Books of Account and Stock Register:
The AO observed that the assessee did not maintain a proper stock register despite dealing in raw meat, which could have substantiated the purchase transactions. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee maintained only cash book, ledger, sales and purchase bills, and expense vouchers, but no quantitative stock tally was maintained. This lack of a stock register weakened the assessee's argument that the purchases were genuine.

4. Reliability of Self-made Bills and Affidavits:
The AO found that the bills were self-made and not signed by the sellers. The affidavits provided by the assessee were deemed unreliable as they were not supported by independent evidence. The AO and CIT(A) both concluded that the affidavits could not prove the genuineness of the transactions. The AO also noted that one party, Raju s/o Kalava, denied signing any affidavit, further discrediting the affidavits submitted by the assessee.

5. Comparison of Assessee’s Net Profit Percentage with Comparable Cases:
The AR of the assessee argued that the disallowance led to an impractical profit percentage of 12.33%, which was not achievable in the meat export business. The assessee presented comparable cases with much lower profit percentages, ranging from 0.09% to 0.49%. The Tribunal found that the purchases were not fully verifiable, and the book results were unreliable. However, considering the comparable cases, the Tribunal concluded that it was unreasonable to assess the income at 12.33% of the turnover. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the assessee’s income at 0.49% of the turnover, which was the highest net profit rate in the comparable cases.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and directing the AO to recompute the assessee’s income at 0.49% of its turnover, thereby providing a more reasonable assessment. The appeal of the assessee was thus partly allowed.