2025 (6) TMI 1632 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - onus cast upon the assessee could not be discharged either before the Ld. AO or before the Ld. CIT(A) - CIT(A) sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the non-genuine/suspicious/bogus purchases instead of 100% disallowance - HELD THAT - The genuineness of transactions is a factual finding which cannot be established without understanding the facts properly along with substantial corroborative evidence to support the same. Only after getting a clear depiction of the facts the pertinence of judicial pronouncements would come into the play to justify their applicability under the given facts and circumstances whereas in present case on perusal of facts on records the assessee was not able to substantiate the genuineness of transactions doubted by Ld. AO. We are of the considered view that the assessee is liable to substantiate that there are genuine purchases to achieve the turnover / sales declared by it in its Return of Income for the relevant year. Whereas the assessee squarely failed in offering any plausible explanation about the bogus purchases nor was it able to justify that there was no inflation in the purchase expenses on account of such sham transactions. As all such facts of the present matter are not examined by the Ld. CIT(A) before deciding the issue he only kept his entire focus and remain self-centered on the jurisprudence dehors relating the factual aspect of the alleged bogus transactions. Therefore the matter needs thorough examinations and enquiries by the First Appellate Authority by himself or through Ld. AO in accordance with the mandate of Section 250 of the Act. Before parting with we may herein observe that as the matter in present case pertains to bogus purchases/ sham transactions the observations of this tribunal in the case of Subedar Pathak 2025 (6) TMI 810 - ITAT RAIPUR restored appeal in the set aside appellate proceedings as it is the responsibility of the revenue authorities to investigate the matter in detailed manner as per law whether there is tax planning or tax evasion as per the transactions entered into by the assessee. If tax evasion is determined by the revenue in such circumstances additions are to be sustained in the hands of the assessee. The order of CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to his file for denovo adjudication with adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the disputed bogus purchases pointed out by the Ld. AO - Appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

The primary legal issues considered in this appeal revolve around the treatment of alleged bogus purchases recorded by the assessee and the extent of disallowance or addition to income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly under Section 69C. The core questions are:

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases instead of disallowing 100% of such purchases, relying on certain High Court decisions.

2. Whether the appellate order suffers from perversity due to misreading or ignoring relevant evidence and facts on record.

3. The applicability and interpretation of Section 69C regarding unexplained expenditure and the burden of proof on the assessee to establish genuineness of purchases.

4. The extent to which judicial precedents on bogus purchases and accommodation entries apply to the facts of this case.

5. Whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases should be added back to income or only the profit element embedded therein.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of restricting addition to 12.5% of bogus purchases versus 100% disallowance

The legal framework involves Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that unexplained expenditure can be deemed as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of such expenditure. The burden lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of transactions, especially when dealing with accommodation entries or bogus purchases.

The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had recorded purchases amounting to Rs. 76,21,830 from an entity engaged in issuing bogus bills, as established by investigation and corroborated by GST department findings. The AO disallowed the entire amount under Section 69C.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) partially allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, relying heavily on the Bombay High Court decision in PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani and Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Simit Sheth. These decisions held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed rather than the entire purchase amount.

The CIT(A) reasoned that the entire purchases could not be disallowed as the sale proceeds were accounted for and offered to tax, and only the profit portion should be added to income to prevent revenue leakage. The CIT(A) also cited various precedents where disallowance percentages ranged from 10% to 100%, depending on facts.

The Tribunal, however, found the CIT(A)'s approach perverse, emphasizing that the CIT(A) accepted the AO's finding that purchases were bogus and books were rejected but then arbitrarily restricted the addition to 12.5% without analyzing the facts of the present case or reconciling them with the cited judgments. The Tribunal underscored that judicial precedents must be applied after a thorough factual analysis, which was missing here.

Further, the Tribunal noted the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases or source of payments, supported by statements from the investigation wing and reversal of input tax credits by the assessee itself, indicating acknowledgment of bogus transactions.

2. Burden of proof and applicability of Section 69C

Section 69C provides that unexplained expenditure can be treated as income if the assessee fails to explain the source satisfactorily. The AO and CIT(A) found that the assessee did not produce any credible evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases from the alleged bogus supplier.

The Tribunal reiterated that strict rules of evidence do not apply in income tax proceedings. The AO is entitled to draw conclusions based on the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances, including investigation reports and failure to respond to show cause notices.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that once purchases are found bogus, the entire amount can be added back without restricting disallowance to a percentage.

The Tribunal also referred to the Bombay High Court decision in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd., which upheld the AO's addition of the entire unexplained expenditure under Section 69C and disapproved the appellate authorities' estimation of profit rate to reduce the addition. This decision emphasized that unexplained expenditure cannot be partially disallowed by estimating profits when the assessee fails to discharge the onus.

3. Treatment of judicial precedents and their applicability

The CIT(A) relied on various judicial decisions to justify restricting addition to 12.5%, including cases where disallowances ranged from 10% to 25% based on facts. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to analyze whether the facts of the present case aligned with those precedents.

The Tribunal highlighted that the CIT(A) accepted the AO's findings of bogus purchases but then selectively applied precedents without factual correlation. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial precedents cannot be applied in a vacuum and must be contextualized with the facts and evidence of each case.

Further, the Tribunal pointed out that many decisions cited by CIT(A) involved situations where some evidence or explanation was furnished by the assessee, which was not the case here.

4. Factual findings on the nature of purchases and involvement of the assessee

The AO's detailed inquiry revealed that the alleged supplier was involved in issuing fake invoices and fraudulent Input Tax Credit claims. The assessee reversed ITC and did not appeal against GST department actions, indicating acknowledgment of bogus transactions.

Statements recorded by the investigation wing confirmed the sham nature of transactions. The assessee failed to respond adequately to show cause notices and did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the purchases.

The Tribunal underscored that these factual findings are critical and cannot be ignored or overridden by mechanical application of precedents.

5. Competent authority and procedural propriety

The Tribunal noted that under Section 250 of the Act, the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) is the final fact-finding authority and is required to conduct a detailed inquiry and adjudication based on facts and evidence.

In this case, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to discharge this duty adequately, leading to a perverse order. The Tribunal therefore set aside the appellate order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity to prove genuineness of purchases and to examine all facts thoroughly.

The Tribunal also referred to its own prior observations on the need to investigate whether transactions constitute tax evasion or legitimate tax planning, citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that colorable devices and fraud vitiate proceedings.

6. Treatment of competing arguments

The revenue contended that the entire amount should be added back as the assessee failed to prove genuineness and source of payments, invoking Section 69C and relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions.

The assessee, though absent during hearings, had argued before CIT(A) relying on precedents restricting addition to profit element only.

The Tribunal sided with the revenue's position, holding that the assessee's failure to discharge the onus and the factual findings of bogus transactions warranted addition of the entire amount unless the assessee proves otherwise.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order restricting addition to 12.5% was perverse and not based on proper factual analysis. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, and the AO rightly invoked Section 69C to add back the entire amount of bogus purchases.

The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and facts, with directions to conduct a thorough inquiry and provide opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims.

Significant Holdings:

"The genuineness of transactions is a factual finding, which cannot be established without understanding the facts properly along with substantial corroborative evidence to support the same. Only after getting a clear depiction of the facts, the pertinence of judicial pronouncements would come into the play to justify their applicability under the given facts and circumstances."

"In the present case, on perusal of facts on records, the assessee was not able to substantiate the genuineness of transactions doubted by Ld. AO."

"The observations of Ld. CIT(A) are found to be perverse as; at one place he is accepting the findings of the Ld. AO qua the rejection of books of accounts and assessee's failure in substantiating its claim of genuineness of purchases, on the other hand he is allowing the estimation of profit based on certain judgments without correlating the facts of present case to the facts of such judgments."

"Once it is found that the purchases were bogus, addition has to be made to the extent of the purchases found to be fictitious. The consideration that the gross profit disclosed by the assessee compares favorably as compared to the earlier years is wholly irrelevant." (Reproduced from judicial precedent)

"Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." (Section 69C)

"Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law, Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning." (Supreme Court ruling)

The Tribunal's final determination was to set aside the CIT(A) order and restore the appeal for fresh adjudication, allowing the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for detailed factual inquiry and adherence to the legal mandate under Section 69C and related jurisprudence.