9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 599 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - bogus purchases - addition of profit element at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases was justified - HELD THAT - Tribunal in the cases of Mr. Manish P. Lathia HUF 2024 (12) TMI 1569 - ITAT MUMBAI and Mr. Vinesh Arvindkumar Shah 2024 (12) TMI 1568 - ITAT MUMBAI has also dealt with identical issue as involved in this case wherein the Assessee was also involved in the identical business such as ferrous or non- ferrous metals. The Hon ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal restricted the addition from 12.5% to 5%. And therefore considering the peculiar fact and circumstances for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice this court deem it appropriate to restrict the addition @5% instead of 4% as restricted by the Ld. Commissioner. AO is directed to compute the profit element/margin/estimation 5% instead of 4% as restricted by the Ld. Commissioner.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
- Whether the reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified in the facts of the case. - Whether the purchases claimed by the assessee, made through banking channels and supported by purchase invoices and bank statements, were genuine or bogus. - Whether the addition of profit element by the Assessing Officer at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases was justified. - Whether the reduction of the addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) from 12.5% to 4% was appropriate. - Whether the Revenue's appeal seeking restoration of addition at 100% of bogus purchases, relying on a High Court judgment, was sustainable in the facts of the instant case. - What is the appropriate percentage of profit addition to be made on the purchases disallowed as bogus, considering precedents and facts. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Justification for reopening proceedings under section 147 The reopening was challenged by the assessee but was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court did not specifically overturn this finding, implying acceptance of reopening on the basis of information from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus accommodation entries. The reopening was thus considered legally valid for reassessment. Issue 2: Genuineness of purchases made through banking channels Relevant legal framework includes the requirement that the assessee must prove the genuineness of purchases to claim expenses. The Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness based on information from the Sales Tax Department and the absence of delivery challans, transport receipts, and octroi receipts. However, the assessee produced purchase invoices, bank statements evidencing payments through banking channels, and a quantitative tally correlating purchases and sales. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer accepted the payments through banking channels as genuine in the assessment order itself. The Court distinguished this case from precedents where the assessee failed to prove source of expenditure or genuineness of purchases. Therefore, the Court found the purchases to be sufficiently proved as genuine transactions. Issue 3: Justification of addition at 12.5% profit element by Assessing Officer The Assessing Officer estimated profit element at 12.5% of the total purchases, based on the assumption that purchases were bogus and sales were inflated. This estimation was challenged by the assessee and reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to 4%, relying on a Tribunal judgment in Kamlesh Bhansali's case. The Court considered whether the 12.5% estimation was justified given the facts. It noted that the Assessing Officer did not reject the payments through banking channels and that the assessee had demonstrated a one-to-one correlation between purchases and sales. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's estimate was arbitrary and that a lower percentage was more appropriate. Issue 4: Appropriateness of reduction of addition from 12.5% to 4% by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the addition to 4% based on a Tribunal decision. The Court reviewed this reduction in light of other relevant precedents, including two recent Tribunal decisions involving similar businesses (ferrous and non-ferrous metals), where the addition was restricted to 5%. The Court found that the reduction to 4% was reasonable but, considering similar cases and the need for substantial justice, it was appropriate to increase the addition slightly to 5% rather than 4%. Issue 5: Whether Revenue's appeal to restore addition at 100% based on High Court judgment was sustainable The Revenue relied on a High Court judgment where the addition was restored at 100% of bogus purchases. However, the Court distinguished the facts of that case, noting that in the High Court case the assessee failed to prove source of expenditure and genuineness of purchases, leading to application of section 69(c) of the Act. In contrast, in the instant case, the assessee proved payments through banking channels and the Assessing Officer accepted this fact. The Court held that the Revenue's contention to restore addition at 100% was not applicable and could not be sustained. Issue 6: Appropriate percentage of profit addition on disallowed purchases The Court considered various precedents, including judgments of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal, which dealt with estimation of profit on bogus purchases. The High Court had earlier confirmed additions at lower percentages (10% or 25%) and found no substantial question of law in estimation issues. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court directed the Assessing Officer to compute the profit element at 5% of the purchases disallowed as bogus, instead of 4% as restricted by the Commissioner or 12.5% as estimated by the Assessing Officer. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The Hon'ble High Court, while deciding the issue, has also taken into consideration the relevant fact specific to the effects that the Assessee in that case failed to prove the purchases including source of expenditure, by not offering any explanation in the course of reassessment proceedings and therefore in the absence of any explanation qua source of expenditure, the AO had applied the provisions of section 69(c) of the Act and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court justified the action of the AO, in making the addition @100%. Whereas in the instant case, admittedly the Assessee has proved that the transactions have been carried out through banking channels and the assessing officer has not also not doubted the same and accepted specifically in the assessment order itself vide para 7(xii) for making the payment through banking channel." "Considering the peculiar fact and circumstances, for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this court deem it appropriate to restrict the addition @5% instead of 4% as restricted by the Ld. Commissioner." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
