2020 (4) TMI 406 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 69C - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT - Despite giving notice none appeared for the assessee and there is no adjournment application filed before us. After going through the assessment order and CIT(A), we find that the AO observed that summons u/s 131 was responded and the confirmation and explanation was given by describing state wise procedure for providing bogus purchase bill/accommodation entry. AO has taken cognizance of the documents/evidences produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings no books of accounts were produced by the assessee and no explanation was offered as regards bogus purchase of ₹ 7,44,644/-. Therefore, AO has rightly made addition u/s 69C read with Section 4, 5 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition after going through all the evidences produced by the assessee before the Revenue authorities. The assessee failed to establish the bogus purchases. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Reassessment proceedings validity, Addition of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, CIT(A) decision confirmation.

Reassessment Proceedings Validity:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by CIT(A)-18, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2007-08. The appellant contended that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order were not compliant with statutory conditions and procedures. The appellant argued that the reasons recorded for issuing notice under section 148 were contrary to facts and lacked application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of an amount on account of purchases made by the assessee, treating them as bogus under section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The appellant further contended that the firm in question was engaged in actual business, supported by substantial inventory found during a search, contrary to the AO's assertion. Despite the appellant's arguments and evidence presented, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition, citing the failure to establish the legitimacy of the purchases, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Addition of Bogus Purchases under Section 69C:
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 based on information received regarding accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases. The appellant was provided with details of these entries and was asked to justify why the purchases should not be treated as bogus. Statements from individuals involved confirmed the provision of accommodation entries and the absence of actual sales. The appellant failed to provide books of accounts and did not offer a satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings. The AO treated the purchases as bogus under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, leading to the addition of the amount to the appellant's total income. The CIT(A) upheld this decision after reviewing the evidence presented by the appellant and finding the explanations insufficient to establish the legitimacy of the purchases.

CIT(A) Decision Confirmation:
During the appeal process, the assessee did not appear, and no application for adjournment was submitted. The notice was duly served, and the appeal was based on submissions made before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The CIT(A) decision to dismiss the appeal was supported by the assessment order and the evidence provided by the appellant. The Assessing Officer's observation of the lack of books of accounts and satisfactory explanations regarding the bogus purchases led to the addition under section 69C. The CIT(A) confirmed this decision after reviewing all evidence, concluding that the appellant failed to establish the legitimacy of the purchases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the addition of the amount was upheld.

In conclusion, the appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Income Tax Act was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to provide adequate evidence to support the legitimacy of the transactions, despite contentions regarding the firm's engagement in actual business and the sufficiency of materials and evidences presented before the AO.