2020 (11) TMI 305 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - HELD THAT - As decided in own case we are inclined to restrict the disallowance @ 2% of alleged purchases. Therefore, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance @ 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, we partly allow the ground raised by the assessee. Addition u/s 68 on undisclosed income - HELD THAT - We notice from the records that assessee has introduced the capital in the firm and not disclosed the proper source. It is fact that assessee is in the business for so many years. But the funds were not deposited in the bank, but introduced in the business. It is the duty of the assessee to disclose the proper source. The profit declared by the assessee is also not considerable to support the contention of the assessee. If it is private source from family or friends, it should be properly disclosed. Since, no documentary evidence or any confirmations were filed before us, it is possible that assessee might have certain private savings. Therefore, we are inclined to allow 50% of the capital introduced by him as genuine. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reassessment proceedings under section 147
2. Assessment order under section 143 sub section 3 r w s 147
3. Treatment of purchases as bogus non-genuine expenditure
4. Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act
5. Charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D
6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c)

Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2009-10. The assessment was reopened due to alleged bogus purchases based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The AO made additions on this account. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% based on various judgments. The appellant challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings, arguing that they were not justified merely for an enquiry or verification. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in the same case and upheld the 2% restriction on bogus purchases, concluding that the additions were justified due to the failure to substantiate purchases.

Assessment Order under Section 143 Sub Section 3 r w s 147:
The appellant contested the assessment order under section 143 sub section 3 r w s 147, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, restricting the disallowance to 2% of alleged bogus purchases, following a previous decision in the appellant's case. The Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to substantiate purchases and could not produce suppliers to confirm transactions, leading to the upheld addition.

Treatment of Purchases as Bogus Non-Genuine Expenditure:
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the treatment of a portion of purchases as bogus non-genuine expenditure, adding it to the total income of the assessee. The Tribunal, based on previous judgments in the appellant's case, restricted the disallowance to 2% of alleged bogus purchases, considering the nature of the business and the failure to substantiate transactions. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, aligning with the earlier decision.

Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The Ld. CIT(A) added a specific amount as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the funds introduced were from past savings and family members for medical needs. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of proper disclosure of the source but allowed 50% of the capital introduced as genuine, considering the possibility of private savings. The ground raised by the appellant was partially allowed.

Charging of Interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the charging of interest under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal did not address this issue specifically in the judgment summary provided.

Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(l)(c):
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c). The Tribunal deemed challenging these proceedings premature at this stage and dismissed this ground of appeal. The overall appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Tribunal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers all the issues raised in the appeal, detailing the arguments presented, the decisions made by the Tribunal, and the rationale behind each decision.