2020 (8) TMI 470 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of profit from bogus purchases - unexplained expenditure - HELD THAT - In this case, considering the nature of business of the assessee the AO has estimated 40.50% gross profit, which has been upheld by the ld. Ld.CIT(A). Although, both authorities have taken uniform rate of profit for estimation of income from alleged bogus purchase, but no one could support said rate of gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases. Therefore, rate of profit adopted by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) seems to be on higher side when compared to nature of business of the assessee and hence, to settle dispute between the parties, we direct the ld. AO to estimate 12.50% gross profit on alleged bogus purchases. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Bogus Purchases from alleged Bogus Parties and unexplained expenditure

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee, engaged in the manufacturing business, declared a loss in its return of income. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information regarding bogus purchases from hawala dealers. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) with additions made to the total income due to alleged bogus purchases. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases, emphasizing the onus on the taxpayer to prove the genuineness of transactions. The Ld.CIT(A) referred to decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support the addition of only the profit element embedded in such purchases, not the entire purchase price. The Tribunal noted that both the assessee and the AO failed to conclusively prove their cases with necessary evidence. Considering the nature of the business, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 12.50% gross profit on alleged bogus purchases, differing from the higher rates adopted by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the AO had relied on information from the investigation wing and the Sales Tax Department to conclude that purchases from certain parties were bogus. The assessee provided basic evidence but failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of the purchases. The AO did not dispute the sales declared by the assessee, and no discrepancies in the books of accounts were pointed out. The Tribunal referred to precedents where only the profit element embedded in purchases from suspicious dealers was taxed. Considering the lack of necessary evidence to support the higher profit rates adopted by the lower authorities, the Tribunal directed a lower rate of 12.50% gross profit to be estimated on the alleged bogus purchases. The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, settling the dispute between the parties regarding the addition of bogus purchases.