9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 222 - AT - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts - HELD THAT - We find that no specific submission against rejection of books of account was made by learned AR of the assessee. Thus, the rejection of books of account is affirmed. Bogus purchases addition to the extent of 5% - HELD THAT - It is a settled law that in case of disputed purchases shown from such hawala dealer s only profit element embedded in such transaction is to be disallowed, to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage and not the substantial part of transaction. No doubt, the Assessing Officer identified the purchases of Rs. 2.15 crores shown from hawala dealers, the assessee may have shown other transaction with some other parties. However, the assessee has offered a meagre income of Rs. 17,76,610/- for taxation, thus the assessee was shown an extremely low profit. The combination of this bench in other similar cases wherein the purchases are shown from Bhanwarlal Jain or Rajendra Jain or Gautam Jain group have restricted or enhanced the addition to the extent of 6% of such amount or disputed purchases. Therefore, taking a consistent view, the disallowance which was restricted to the extent of 5% by learned CIT(A) are increased to 6% of the impugned purchases of Rs. 2.15 Crores. Assessee appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of CIT(A) in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and estimating disallowance at 5% of the purchases. 2. Validity of reopening the assessment. 3. Rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in relying on the case of M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of CIT(A) in Partly Allowing the Appeal of the Assessee and Estimating Disallowance at 5% of the Purchases: The primary issue revolves around the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee from Mayur Exports, which were alleged to be bogus. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 2,15,78,821/- on the grounds that the purchases were unverifiable and bogus, based on information from the DGIT (Investigation) Mumbai. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to 5% of the purchases, considering the average gross profit rate in the diamond industry. The Tribunal, however, increased the disallowance to 6%, aligning with the consistent view taken in similar cases involving purchases from known hawala dealers like Bhanwarlal Jain. 2. Validity of Reopening the Assessment: The assessee challenged the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, referencing various judicial decisions that supported the AO's initiation of action under Sections 147/148 as per law. The Tribunal did not find any specific submission against the rejection of the books of accounts, thereby affirming the reopening's validity. 3. Rejection of the Books of Accounts Under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act: The AO rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to discrepancies in the quantity and quality-wise details of rough and polished diamonds. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not challenge the discrepancies identified by the AO nor made any submission to prove these observations were perverse. Consequently, the rejection of the books of accounts was affirmed. 4. Whether the CIT(A) Was Justified in Relying on the Case of M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.: The CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. to justify restricting the addition to 5% of the purchases. The Tribunal, however, noted that the facts in the case of Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. were different as it involved a trader of diamonds, whereas the assessee was a manufacturer and trader of polished diamonds. The Tribunal emphasized that only the profit element embedded in such transactions should be disallowed to avoid revenue leakage, not the substantial part of the transaction. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to increase the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue by increasing the disallowance from 5% to 6% of the purchases and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the assessee. The rejection of the books of accounts was upheld, and the validity of reopening the assessment was affirmed. The reliance on the case of M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. was deemed not entirely applicable due to the different nature of the businesses involved. The decision was consistent with similar cases involving purchases from known hawala dealers.
|
