2020 (4) TMI 490 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - Addition @ 12.5% - purchases from grey market - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that goods were in fact purchased though not from the named parties but from the grey market, no infirmity can be found in the approach adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the addition to 12.5% of such bogus purchases, which would be the approximate differential amount between the actual price of the goods and the expenditure claimed on the basis of the bogus bills. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly justified in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The controversy raised vide proposed question (A), therefore, does not give rise to any question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding disallowance of bogus purchases and computation of profit percentage.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Disallowance of Bogus Purchases:
The appellant revenue contested the deletion of disallowance of purchases from various companies by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessing Officer had made the disallowance based on information received from the Value Added Tax Department regarding bogus purchases. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the purchases were made from the grey market but not from the named parties. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on previous High Court decisions to add a profit percentage of 12.5% on such bogus purchases. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the purchases were made, albeit not from disclosed sources. The court found no infirmity in the approach adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and concluded that the controversy did not give rise to any question of law.

2. Issue of Computing Profit on Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The appellant raised concerns about the direction to compute profit on alleged bogus purchases at 12.5%. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the assessee had reconciled the purchases with the material consumed and issued bills accordingly. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the purchases were made from the grey market, and there was no evidence of inflation in purchases. The court held that no substantial question of law arose from this issue. The Tribunal did not refer to a specific High Court decision mentioned by the appellant, and thus, the question of its applicability did not arise from the impugned order.

3. Overall Decision:
The High Court, comprising Ms. Justice Harsha Devani and Ms. Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen, dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law emerged from the Tribunal's order. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the disallowance of bogus purchases and the computation of profit percentage, as supported by the Commissioner (Appeals) and previous High Court judgments. The judgment highlighted the importance of reconciling purchases with consumption and emphasized the factual nature of the dispute, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.