2020 (11) TMI 604 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - GP rate estimation - assessee is a scrap dealer and GP during the year was 4.04% - HELD THAT - We are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that it is only the net profit which can be brought to tax and not the entire purchases, however, considering the nature of business of the assessee and the margin on the trading, we find the addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is on the higher side and is unreasonable. In such type of cases the normal presumption is that assessee might have purchased the goods from the grey market thereby saving incidental expenses thereby earning a higher profit than the normal profits - it would be fair and reasonable if a rate of 8 % is applied on the said alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, we direct the AO to apply GP @ 8%. The order of ld CIT(A) is modified, accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for AY 2009-10 - Jurisdictional issue and merit challenge.

Jurisdictional Issue:
The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee challenged the order on jurisdictional issue and merit. During the hearing, no one attended on behalf of the assessee, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The Tribunal decided to adjudicate on merit only and not on jurisdictional issue.

Merits Issue:
The assessee's return of income for AY 2009-10 was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 148 based on information regarding hawala purchase entries. Despite multiple notices and a show cause notice, the assessee did not comply. The AO added the entire bogus purchases to the assessee's income under section 144 read with section 147. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by sustaining 25% of the bogus purchases, following relevant court decisions. The Tribunal, after considering the nature of the assessee's business as a scrap dealer and the profit margin, found the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side. They directed the AO to apply a GP rate of 8% instead of the sustained rate, modifying the CIT(A)'s order accordingly. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with notices and presenting evidence in tax matters. It also emphasizes the need for a reasonable assessment of profits in cases involving alleged bogus purchases, taking into account the nature of the business and profit margins.