2023 (1) TMI 818 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - A.O stated that as per the information received from Sale Tax Department the assessee has made purchases from the following bogus dealers listed by the Sale Tax Department - assessee submitted that payment for the purchase material and payment has been made through cheques/RTGS and he submitted a copy of certificate issue by Greater Bank and all the payments were made by account payee cheques only - HELD THAT - The assessee has submitted the copies of ledger account of the 5 parties, copy of bank statement showing payment made by account payee cheques certificate from civil engineer and site engineer etc. and submitted that without disproving these material the A.O has made the addition on the basis of information displayed on the website of the sale tax department. After taking into consideration the above facts and material on record, it is observed that assessee has not claimed such expenses as revenue expenses during the year under consideration but same were capitalized as work in progress. Therefore, any disallowance it is made its amount to reduce work in progress, since, the expenses were capitalized in the work in progress. Since the expenses were shown by the assessee under the head work in progress and has not been reflected in the trading account, therefore, no addition can be made.We consider that decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the impugned disallowance of expenditure made by the A.O is not justified. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2011-12 - Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases - Discrepancy in assessment order under section 127 - Non-appearance of vendors before authorities - Relevance of bank certificate and civil engineer's certificate - Lack of opportunity for cross-examination - Treatment of disallowance as income - Impact on project profit margin.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s decision upholding the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12, citing discrepancies in the underlying order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases totaling Rs.125,60,620, emphasizing the absence of vendors before authorities and the submission of crucial evidence like bank certificates and civil engineer's certification.

2. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the relevant documents provided, such as the bank certificate and civil engineer's certification, in relation to the disallowed purchases. Additionally, the appellant highlighted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination regarding certain affidavits used as a basis for the disallowance.

3. The appellant contended that the disallowance should have been treated as a reduction in the work in progress (WIP) rather than income for the year. The appellant raised concerns about the significant impact of the disallowance on the project's profit margin, deeming it unrealistic and unattainable.

4. The Assessing Officer (A.O) had disallowed the purchases based on information from the Sales Tax Department, labeling the vendors as bogus. However, the appellant argued that the expenses were capitalized in the WIP and not claimed as revenue expenses. The appellant provided supporting evidence like ledger accounts, bank statements, and certifications to substantiate the legitimacy of the purchases.

5. The Appellate Tribunal observed that since the expenses were reflected under WIP and not in the trading account, no addition could be justified. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance would only reduce the WIP, as the expenses were already accounted for in the project's progress. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, finding the CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance unjustified.

6. Given the allowance of the alternative ground of appeal, the Tribunal did not address the other grounds raised by the appellant, leaving them open for future consideration.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases and emphasizing the treatment of such expenses as part of the work in progress, rather than as income for the year, based on the evidence presented and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.