2019 (3) TMI 316 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - information received from the Investigation Wing - assessee company was one of the beneficiaries of Hawala transactions routed through the hawala dealers as informed by the Sales Tax (VAT) Department, State of Maharashtra - HELD THAT - The facts of the case indicate that assessee has made purchase from the grey market. Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In such situation on the facts and circumstances of the case, 12.5 % disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. However, in this regard the learned counsel of the assessee has prayed that when only the profits earned by the assessee on these bogus purchase transaction is to be taxed the gross profit already shown by the assessee and offered to tax should be reduced from the standard 12.5% being directed to be disallowed on account of bogus purchase.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of 15% out of bogus purchase for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appellant contested against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding a 15% disallowance out of bogus purchases for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11.
2. Factual Overview: The Assessing Officer (A.O.) found the appellant to be involved in Hawala transactions based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The appellant was asked to provide various documents to prove the genuineness of the purchases, but failed to do so adequately.
3. AO's Disallowance: The A.O. disallowed 25% of the purchases made from alleged hawala parties, considering them as non-genuine transactions. This disallowance was added back to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the IT Act, 1961.
4. CIT(A) Order: The Commissioner restricted the disallowance to 15%, stating that the appellant had not proved the purchases' genuineness adequately. The CIT(A) considered the one-to-one correlation of purchases and sales but found discrepancies in the evidence provided by the appellant.
5. Appellate Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal noted that the appellant provided documentary evidence for the purchases, and since the sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases was not justified. Referring to a High Court decision, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 12.5% considering the nature of purchases from the grey market.
6. Final Ruling: The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, adjusted by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions. This decision aimed to prevent double jeopardy to the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, background, factual overview, decisions by the A.O., CIT(A), and the Appellate Tribunal, leading to the final ruling in the case.