2019 (8) TMI 797 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus transaction relating to purchase of computer software from DSTPL - HELD THAT - It is factually established that the sales effected by the DSTPL to different parties are genuine. If in case of DSTPL, the sales effected are accepted as genuine, the same cannot be treated as bogus in case of assessee as they like two sides of the same coin. That being the case, the purchases effected from DSTPL by the assessee cannot be held as bogus. The allegation made by the AO that the assessee has not furnished various evidences including VAT payment does not appears to be correct as the material placed before us proves otherwise. In fact, learned Authorised Representative has demonstrated that the assessee has paid VAT on the said transaction. Therefore, the allegation of the Assessing Officer that VAT has not been paid on the said transaction is factually incorrect. It is further relevant to observe, in respect of various other assessees, AO relying upon very same information received from CBI treated similar transactions as non genuine and made additions. However, the appellate authorities after considering various evidences and material brought before them have held that the transactions relating to purchase and sales of computer software are genuine. In this context, we may refer to a number of decisions of the Tribunal cited before us by the learned Authorised Representative. Order of CIT(A) sustained - Decided against the revenue.

Issues Involved:
Appeals against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09; Addition of unexplained purchases based on transactions with another company; Deletion of addition by Commissioner (Appeals); Dispute over genuineness of transactions; Reliance on information from CBI/ACB; Comparison with previous assessment year; Allegation of non-payment of VAT; Consistency in decisions across cases; Dismissal of Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:

1. Addition of Unexplained Purchases:
The appeals were against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, involving the addition of unexplained purchases made by the assessee from another company, DSTPL. The Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions were bogus, leading to the addition of the purchase amount to the assessee's income.

2. Deletion of Addition by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition after considering the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The Commissioner relied on a previous decision in the assessee's favor for the assessment year 2006-07, where similar additions were deleted based on additional evidence furnished by the assessee.

3. Dispute Over Genuineness of Transactions:
The Departmental Representative argued that the Assessing Officer's decision was valid based on information from CBI indicating bogus transactions. However, the Authorized Representative contended that the Assessing Officer did not conduct an independent inquiry and that evidence, including VAT payment proof, supported the genuineness of the transactions.

4. Reliance on Information from CBI/ACB:
The Assessing Officer based the addition on information received from CBI/ACB regarding the transactions. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal considered this information but ultimately relied on additional evidence provided by the assessee to determine the genuineness of the transactions.

5. Comparison with Previous Assessment Year:
The Tribunal compared the current case with the assessment year 2006-07, where similar issues were resolved in favor of the assessee after additional evidence was considered. Consistency in decisions across cases involving the same transactions was highlighted to support the deletion of the addition.

6. Allegation of Non-Payment of VAT:
The Assessing Officer alleged non-payment of VAT by the assessee, but evidence presented during the proceedings proved otherwise. The Authorized Representative demonstrated VAT payment on the transaction, refuting the Assessing Officer's claim.

7. Dismissal of Revenue's Appeal:
After considering all submissions, evidence, and previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found no basis to disturb the factual finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the genuineness of the transactions, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning behind the final decision reached by the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →