9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1703 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases - onus to prove - additional documentary evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate and remand proceedings - DR submitted that the assessee failed to produce the necessary documents and the parties to whom 133(6) notice was issued also did not respond quoting the reason that there is insufficiency of time - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT -The courts have been consistently holding that when the assessee has discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of the purchases by producing the relevant documents no addition can be made towards bogus purchases. In assessee s case from the documents filed by the assessee before the lower authorities and from the paper book containing 584 pages submitted to us it is clear that the assessee has discharged the onus of providing all the documentary evidences from its end. We notice that the AO in the report has recorded certain discrepancies with regard to the documents directly submitted by the parties and that no adverse findings are recorded with respect to documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore assessee has discharged the onus and that the purchases cannot be held to non-genuine merely for the reason that some of the details furnished by the parties have some discrepancies which is beyond assessee s control. With respect to parties who have not responded CIT(A) has given a finding that the purchases are funded by bank after proper due diligence. In any case the assessee has furnished all the relevant documents such as invoices GRN transport bills computerised weighing bridge slip etc. It is a settled position that mere non-response to notice u/s 133(6) cannot be a reason for treating the transaction as bonus when the assessee has otherwise discharged the onus. Given the quantum of addition made towards the alleged bogus purchases from Krishna Structures Steel (India) Ltd and Jay Industries cannot be confirmed merely based on the wrong reference to the page numbers in the different paper books submitted. Hence we are unable appreciate the contentions made by the ld DR that the CIT(A) has not examined the paper books properly before giving relief. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
The core legal question considered in this appeal is whether the addition of Rs. 37,84,29,954/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged bogus purchases is justified, having regard to the facts and evidence on record, including the responses to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and the additional documentary evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate and remand proceedings.
Additional related issues include:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Legitimacy of Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the Income Tax Act, the AO is empowered to verify the genuineness of purchases and make additions if purchases are found to be bogus, i.e., fictitious or not supported by actual receipt of goods or services. The onus lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of such purchases through documentary evidence including purchase invoices, delivery challans, transport receipts, goods received notes, bank payments, and confirmation of parties. Judicial precedents consistently hold that once the assessee discharges this onus satisfactorily, the AO cannot make additions merely on the basis of non-response or discrepancies in third-party confirmations. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO issued notices under section 133(6) to 23 parties from whom the assessee made purchases. Seven parties did not respond, and three parties responded with discrepancies. The AO treated purchases from these 10 parties totaling Rs. 37.84 crores as bogus and made the addition. The AO rejected the assessee's plea that insufficient time was given for responses and did not accept additional evidence submitted by the assessee during remand proceedings. The CIT(A) examined the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including purchase bills, weighing bills, transport receipts, goods received notes, purchase orders, ledger copies, bank statements, and PAN details. The CIT(A) also analyzed the gross profit ratio of the assessee over five years, noting consistency that would be distorted if the addition were sustained. Furthermore, the CIT(A) observed that the AO had not rejected the sales or the books of accounts and that the assessee's records had been scrutinized by excise and VAT authorities without adverse findings. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases and that the addition was not sustainable. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the AO's findings were based on non-response or partial response to notices and some discrepancies in documents submitted by the parties, which were beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal held that mere non-response to section 133(6) notices cannot justify additions if the assessee otherwise furnishes adequate proof. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted voluminous documentary evidence (584 pages) including tax invoices, delivery challans, transport consignment notes, goods received reports, purchase orders, ledger accounts, bank statements, and confirmations from parties. The CIT(A) accepted these as sufficient to prove genuineness. The AO's remand report noted discrepancies but did not discredit the documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted the absence of adverse findings on the genuineness of documents submitted by the assessee. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that the onus is on the assessee to prove genuineness and found that the assessee had met this burden through documentary evidence and co-operation in proceedings. The AO's reliance on non-response or discrepancies in third-party replies was insufficient to rebut the assessee's evidence. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the AO's findings of discrepancies, lack of octroi receipts, duplicate invoice numbers, and contradictory ledger and balance sheet figures indicated fabrication. The Revenue also contended that the CIT(A) failed to address these discrepancies adequately. The Tribunal noted that the page references cited by the Revenue did not correspond to the paper book submitted and that the discrepancies pointed out were not sufficient to overturn the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal also distinguished the Revenue's reliance on a High Court decision involving grey market purchases, noting the factual differences and that the assessee had cooperated and produced evidence in the present case. 2. Admission of Additional Evidence by Revenue Pertaining to Survey Proceedings Legal Framework: Admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage is governed by strict conditions, including relevance, explanation for non-production earlier, and whether the evidence goes to the root of the matter. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Revenue sought to admit survey reports and related documents obtained during a survey conducted on 27.08.2013, prior to the completion of assessment on 29.03.2014. The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order and remand report did not mention or rely on the survey findings. The CIT(A) and AO did not consider these findings during assessment or appellate proceedings. The Tribunal observed that the survey report was available to the AO from 28.03.2014 but was not examined, and the assessee was not confronted with these findings during any proceedings. The Tribunal held that since the assessment was not based on the survey findings, and these findings were not considered by the AO or CIT(A), the additional evidence relating to the survey was not admissible at this stage. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the evidence was newly discovered or essential for just decision, emphasizing procedural fairness and the need for the Revenue to rely on evidence considered during assessment. 3. Validity of CIT(A)'s Reliance on Gross Profit Ratio and Other Factors Legal Framework: The gross profit ratio is a relevant factor in assessing the genuineness of purchases; a sudden distortion may indicate bogus purchases. However, it is not conclusive and must be considered with other evidence. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) relied on the consistency of the assessee's gross profit ratio over five years, noting that sustaining the addition would distort this ratio. The Tribunal accepted this as a corroborative factor supporting the genuineness of purchases, especially since the AO did not dispute sales or reject books of accounts. 4. Onus of Proof and Burden of Evidence Legal Framework: The onus to prove that purchases are bogus lies on the Revenue. The assessee must provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity of the parties, actual movement of goods, and proof of payment. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had furnished extensive documentary evidence satisfying these requirements. The AO's reliance on non-response or discrepancies in third-party confirmations was insufficient to rebut the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the purchases from parties who did not respond were supported by bank financing and due diligence, further substantiating genuineness. Significant Holdings "It is a settled position that mere non-response to notice under section 133(6) cannot be a reason for treating the transaction as bogus, when the assessee has otherwise discharged the onus." "From the facts elaborated herein above it is clear that the assessment from which the present appeal is emanating, is not based on the survey conducted in assessee's case and that survey findings have not been considered as part of the assessment." "The assessee has discharged the onus of providing all the documentary evidences from its end. We notice that the AO in the report has recorded certain discrepancies with regard to the documents directly submitted by the parties and that no adverse findings are recorded with respect to documents submitted by the assessee." "The decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the said case [Kanak Impex (India) Ltd.] was also on the ground that the assessee has not discharged the onus of proving genuineness, has been non-cooperative during the assessment proceedings. In assessee's case, the assessee's contention is that the purchases are genuine and the assessee has discharged the onus by producing the necessary evidences to substantiate the claim." "In view of these discussions and considering the facts peculiar to assessee's case we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made towards alleged bogus purchases." The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 37,84,29,954/- on account of bogus purchases. The core principle established is that where the assessee furnishes credible and sufficient documentary evidence substantiating purchases, and cooperates fully with the proceedings, the AO cannot make additions solely on the basis of non-response or discrepancies in third-party confirmations. Further, additional evidence not considered during assessment or appellate proceedings, especially relating to survey reports, cannot be admitted belatedly at the appellate stage.
|
