2021 (3) TMI 765 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - bench asked that if assessee is ready for 8% of the addition of total purchases than matter can be heard - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note here sales were not disputed by the lower authorities so we just failed to understand how purchases can be doubted. So ultimately, Ld. A.R. agreed for 8% addition of the total sales amount. We agree with the proposal of 8% of addition. Appeal field by the Assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act
- Addition of unverifiable purchases
- Disallowance percentage for unverifiable purchases
- Interpretation of relevant case law

Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Act:
The appeal was directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) order dated 11/09/2018, arising from an assessment order dated 16/12/2016. The Assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment. The facts revealed that the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department provided information indicating the involvement of hawala billers in providing accommodation entries of bogus sale bills. The Assessee's name was among the beneficiaries who made purchases from such hawala billers. Despite submitting various accounting documents, the Assessee did not provide certain crucial documents like bills, confirmation accounts from suppliers, and payment receipts. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of the total unverifiable purchases, amounting to ?39,64,242.

Addition of Unverifiable Purchases:
The primary issue revolved around the addition of unverifiable purchases. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of 25% of the total unverifiable purchases, as the Assessee failed to provide essential supporting documents. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, citing a precedent where a similar percentage was deemed fair and reasonable for disallowance. The Assessee contested this addition, arguing that sales were not disputed, and thus, the doubt on purchases was unwarranted. Eventually, the Assessee agreed to an 8% addition of the total sales amount, which was accepted by the tribunal.

Disallowance Percentage for Unverifiable Purchases:
The disagreement over the disallowance percentage for unverifiable purchases was a crucial aspect of the case. While the Assessing Officer initially disallowed 25% of the total unverifiable purchases, the Assessee sought a lower percentage. The Assessee referenced a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case, where the Tribunal reduced the addition to 5% of the amount after considering various factors such as gross profit rates and proper maintenance of records. Ultimately, the tribunal agreed to a reduced disallowance of 8% of the total sales amount, considering the uncontested nature of sales and the lack of justification for doubting purchases.

Interpretation of Relevant Case Law:
The interpretation of relevant case law played a significant role in the decision-making process. The Assessee cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support their argument regarding the percentage of disallowance for unverifiable purchases. The case law highlighted the importance of considering factors like profit rates and proper documentation in determining the appropriate disallowance percentage. By referencing this case law, the Assessee successfully negotiated a reduced disallowance percentage of 8% of the total sales amount, which was accepted by the tribunal, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance percentage for unverifiable purchases to 8% of the total sales amount based on the interpretation of relevant case law and the uncontested nature of sales transactions.