9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 458 - HC - Income TaxEstimation of income - ITAT applied the GP ration on additions made u/s 68 - Genuineness of purchase - bogus transaction or not - assessee claimed that the readymade garments were exported and claimed drawback amounts from the concerned authorities. After enquiry, the AO was of the opinion that the amounts claimed towards purchase of the raw materials were bogus - Held that - the application of law by the lower revenue authorities AO and the CIT(A) was correct. Having accepted that the expenditure claimed was bogus, the ITAT, for strange and unexplained reasons, applied the GP Ratio which was entirely unwarranted and thus, reduced the tax liability of the assessee drastically. Decided in favor of revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of purchases amounting to ?6,77,21,540/- claimed by the assessee. 2. Treatment of sundry creditors amounting to ?6,18,35,598/- as unexplained credits under Section 68. 3. Rejection of books of accounts and application of Gross Profit (GP) Ratio by ITAT. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Purchases: The primary issue revolves around whether the ITAT erred in setting aside the concurrent finding regarding the disallowance of purchases amounting to ?6,77,21,540/-. The assessee reported this amount as spent on raw materials for garment manufacturing. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) found these purchases to be bogus after an inquiry. The AO detailed the particulars provided by the assessee regarding the entities from whom the purchases were made and concluded that these entities were non-existent or unverifiable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO’s findings, noting that the assessee failed to produce the parties from whom the purchases were allegedly made. The CIT(A) emphasized that the appellant's inability to provide current addresses or produce these parties supported the AO’s inference of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) also referenced the case of La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575, where similar issues were adjudicated, leading to a conclusion that 30% of the total purchases were unverifiable, resulting in a disallowance of ?6,77,21,540/-. 2. Treatment of Sundry Creditors: The CIT(A) also addressed another amount of ?6,18,35,598/- listed as sundry creditors in the assessee’s books, which lacked satisfactory explanation. The CIT(A) treated these as unexplained credits under Section 68. However, since the larger sum of ?6.77 crores was already brought to tax, the CIT(A) subsumed this amount within it. 3. Rejection of Books of Accounts and Application of GP Ratio: The ITAT, while accepting the rejection of the assessee’s books of accounts, adopted a different approach by applying a Gross Profit (GP) Ratio of 6.05%, based on past years' income and profit. The ITAT reasoned that once the books and trading results were rejected under Section 145(3), no addition on account of bogus purchases or unexplained sundry trade creditors could be made. Instead, the AO should estimate the gross profit and net profit rate based on logical and judicial wisdom. The ITAT criticized the AO for not carrying out this exercise and concluded that since the gross profit and net profit rates for the relevant year were higher than the preceding year, no further addition was warranted. The ITAT thus dismissed the addition made by the AO. Final Judgment: The High Court found that the particulars and materials provided by the assessee regarding the suppliers were unsatisfactory. The suppliers were untraceable, and notices sent to them were returned unserved. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the assessee to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions, which the assessee failed to do. The High Court concluded that the lower revenue authorities (AO and CIT(A)) correctly applied the law by treating the expenditure as bogus. The ITAT’s application of the GP Ratio was deemed unwarranted and reduced the tax liability of the assessee without justification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the question of law was answered in favor of the Revenue, affirming the disallowance of the purchases and the treatment of sundry creditors as unexplained credits.
|
