2021 (3) TMI 1125 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - HELD THAT - The finding on facts is not rebutted by the Revenue by placing cogent evidence. The Assessing Officer has not doubted the book results. Moreover the Assessing Officer has not given any adverse finding regarding the issues for which the case was selected for scrutiny. Further the Assessing Officer has not disturbed the sale. There is no whisper about out of book sales made by the assessee. We therefore do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue are hence rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of ?2,04,36,269/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases.

Analysis:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15, specifically focusing on the deletion of an addition of ?2,04,36,629/- due to alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of purchases from three parties based on various grounds, including locked premises, familial relations, and lack of business infrastructure. Consequently, the Assessing Officer assessed the income at ?2,64,20,900/-, higher than the returned income of ?59,84,270/-. The CIT(A), after reviewing the material and assessment, deleted the addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition as the assessee failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The Revenue emphasized the locked premises and insufficient funds of the parties as factors supporting the disallowance. On the contrary, the assessee's counsel supported the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting that all required details were furnished to the Assessing Officer and no concrete evidence of bogus purchases was presented. The counsel argued that the accounts were not rejected, and sales figures remained undisputed.

The Tribunal examined the matter, noting that out of total purchases of ?11,07,31,239/-, only purchases worth ?2,04,36,629/- were doubted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) justified the deletion by emphasizing that the sellers confirmed the sales, payments were made via cheques, and dispatch and receipt of goods were evidenced. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings with substantial evidence. Moreover, the Assessing Officer did not question the book results or the reasons for selecting the case for scrutiny. As the sales were deemed genuine, the corresponding purchases were also considered legitimate. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds and dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?2,04,36,629/- attributed to alleged bogus purchases, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to support the Revenue's claims and the genuine nature of the transactions as evidenced by payment records and sales confirmations.