Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2010 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURTInflated purchase - Onus to prove – proof of purchase - Revenue submitted that the respondent-assessee had over-invoiced its purchases with an intent to inflate its purchases and reduce its profits. – Held that: - It is settled law that in revenue matters, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet when it files purchase bills and affidavits, the onus shifts to the Revenue. One must not forget that it is Revenue which has powers regarding discovery, inspection, production and calling for evidence as well as survey, search, seizure and requisition of books of accounts. - The difference in purchase rate has been arrived at by the learned CIT(A) is merely 1.5%. This in our opinion is not significant enough to warrant any addition based on surmises. The learned CIT(A) has himself observed that provision of section 40A(2) are not attracted in this case. It is also an admitted fact that assessee has made the profit on those purchase. It is also not the case that there is decline in the gross profit rate as compared the previous year. No case has also been made out that the profit earned on these purchase was not up the mark. Under the circumstances, in our opinion the addition on account of substitution of purchase price by the revenue is not justified.
|