2021 (8) TMI 1193 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus Purchases - as per AO accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of accounts, the payments have been made by account payee cheque which are duly reflected in the bank statement of the appellant. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has received cash back from the suppliers - AO has not disputed the sales of the concluded that there is no basis to disbelieve the purchases made by the appellant from the alleged parties which could, have caused any leakage to the revenue necessitating estimated disallowance claim of the appellant, cannot be denied. The AO is directed to delete the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition/disallowance made by Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 based on alleged non-genuine purchases.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the revenue challenging the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 regarding the deletion of addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessments based on information about accommodation entries provided by various dealers, including the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated a portion of the purchases as non-genuine due to unserved notices and inability to produce parties. However, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition/disallowance after considering the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee.

The Ld.CIT(A) extensively analyzed the matter, noting that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts or doubt the sales shown by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that if sales are accepted, it implies genuine purchases. The assessee provided evidence of sales to government organizations, supporting the purchases. Judicial pronouncements were cited to support the genuineness of purchases made through banking channels even if suppliers were not produced. The Ld.CIT(A) highlighted that suspicion alone cannot substitute proof for making additions.

Several High Court and Tribunal decisions were referenced to emphasize that purchases supported by invoices, payments via cheques, and entries in books of accounts should not be doubted without concrete evidence. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to disprove the genuineness of purchases once the assessee provides initial evidence. The Ld.CIT(A) concluded that the purchases were genuine based on the evidence presented and directed the deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

Upon review, the Tribunal found no error in the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the Ld.CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of concrete evidence and proper assessment based on legitimate grounds rather than mere suspicion. The appeals of the Revenue were ultimately dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition/disallowance by the Assessing Officer.