2023 (2) TMI 1068 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - CIT(A) estimated the profit percentage at 15% - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the assessee had declared gross profit of 10.75% on overall sales (i.e both domestic and export) in its return. It is not in dispute that the sales made out of disputed purchases were not doubted by the revenue in the instant case. Hence it would be just and fair to bring to tax only the profit element embedded in the value of such disputed purchases. Considering the peculiar business model operated by the assessee and considering the fact that the stock registers furnished by the assessee were not disputed by the revenue, we hold that adoption of gross profit percentage of 15% less gross profit declared by the assessee at 10.75% would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the ground numbers raised by the assessee and ground raised by the revenue are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging the validity of reopening and addition made on account of bogus purchases for Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Analysis:
For Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee challenged the validity of reopening, which was dismissed. The main issue revolved around the addition made on account of bogus purchases. The assessee, a private company dealing in Basmati rice, faced scrutiny due to alleged ingenuine purchases from specific suppliers. The assessee provided evidence to support the authenticity of these purchases, including stock registers and payment details. The assessing officer (AO) disbelieved the purchases, leading to an addition of the total purchase amount as bogus under section 69C of the Income Tax Act. However, the AO's approach of applying a common gross profit percentage on all sales was deemed baseless by the appellate tribunal. The tribunal found the AO's actions lacked understanding of the assessee's business model, leading to the deletion of the substantial addition. The tribunal also addressed the addition made on a protective basis, ultimately allowing the appeals partly after considering the peculiarities of the case.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the assessee's contentions, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the AO's rejection of the books of accounts. The Commissioner dismissed the addition based on estimated gross profit on entire sales, highlighting the importance of understanding the business model. The tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision, finding it appropriate in the given circumstances. Regarding the protective addition, the tribunal considered the profit element in the disputed purchases, ultimately allowing the appeals partly for Assessment Year 2012-13.

For Assessment Year 2013-14, similar issues of challenging the validity of reopening and addition on account of bogus purchases were raised. The facts mirrored those of the previous year, leading to a similar decision by the tribunal. The appeals for both the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed for Assessment Year 2013-14, aligning with the outcomes of the preceding year. In conclusion, all appeals were partly allowed, emphasizing the importance of understanding the intricacies of the business model and the need for evidence-based assessments in such cases.