2022 (8) TMI 847 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - additions @ 5% of bogus purchases - main submission of the ld. AR of the assessee are that the assessee has shown Gross Profit @ 22.10% which is high in the line of business of the assessee - HELD THAT - We do not find any merit in the submission of the assessee as no such submission was raised either before Assessing Officer or before ld. CIT(A). Before Assessing Officer no such fact and figure was furnished. AO while rejecting the books of accounts clearly held that no details of quantity and quality wise and rough and polished diamond was furnished - details of carat wise diamond manufactured and quality details were not furnished. The assessee for the first time has come with these fact and figure. No such one to one correlation of purchase and export was prove before Assessing Officer. The case laws relied by ld. AR is not applicable on the facts of the present case as furnished in the case of Pankaj Kawarlal Jain 2019 (8) TMI 1769 - ITAT SURAT in the instant case, there is clear finding of AO that no quantity wise and quality wise detail were furnished, no original challan or jhangad was produced. The assessee has not established as to how much rough diamond used for manufacturing in diamond. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit for further reducing the addition of disputed purchases shown from alleged hawala/bogus entry provider. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance estimation by CIT(A) despite AO's addition
2. Comparison of assessee's business with M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.
3. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 and addition on account of alleged bogus purchases
4. Maintainability of revenue's appeal based on tax effect
5. Validity of reopening under section 147
6. Addition of 5% of alleged bogus purchases by CIT(A)
7. Rejection of books of accounts by AO
8. Assessee's argument on high gross profit and export sales
9. Comparison with previous case laws for addition on GP basis
10. Lack of quantity and quality details provided by assessee
11. Dismissal of cross objection ground related to prayer

Analysis:
1. The appeal by Revenue questions the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of the assessee's appeal, estimating disallowance at 5% despite the AO's addition of Rs. 82,41,914. The CIT(A) based the decision on the case of M/s Myank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., leading to a dispute over the distinction in business operations between the entities.

2. The case involved the reopening of assessment under section 147 due to information from the Investigation Wing, leading to allegations of bogus purchases. The AO rejected the books of accounts due to insufficient details provided by the assessee, resulting in a 100% addition of purchases from a specific entity.

3. The revenue's appeal faced a challenge on maintainability due to the tax effect falling below the threshold set by CBDT. The cross objection raised by the assessee included contentions against the reopening of assessment and the addition made by the AO.

4. The assessee's argument focused on the high gross profit, export sales, and correlation between purchases and sales to justify the legitimacy of transactions. The CIT(A) limited the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, citing industry average gross profit rates.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the tax effect limitation and rejected the cross objection ground related to the validity of reopening under section 147. The decision highlighted the lack of specific details provided by the assessee to support their claims, leading to the dismissal of the cross objection.

6. Overall, the judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining detailed records and providing substantial evidence to substantiate transactions, especially in cases involving allegations of bogus entries and inadequate documentation. The decision upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of disallowance based on industry standards and previous case laws, ultimately dismissing both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection.