9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (7) TMI 182 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 69C - availing accommodation entries of bogus purchases from three hawala parties identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra - CIT(A) restricting the addition @ 4.40% as against the 20% addition made by AO u/s. 69C - AO recorded that assessee has not furnished delivery challans and corresponding sales to third party copy of octroi receipt and transportation receipt were not furnished. HELD THAT - CIT(A) has recorded that the AO has not disputed the sales. Such finding is contrary to the finding of assessing officer on page 3 of assessment order wherein the assessing officer clearly recorded b. The assessee has failed to link the material purchased with sale made by it with the stock register or movement of goods with supporting documents . Thus CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact in proper perspective. Still disallowance made by AO was on higher side therefore disallowance to the extent of 10% of the impugned/bogus purchases from three parties would be fair reasonable and sufficient to avoid the revenue leakage. Thus the AO is directed to restrict the addition @ 10% of purchases. Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in this appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11 are as follows:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Legitimacy of restricting addition to 4.40% against AO's 20% addition on bogus purchases identified from hawala parties Legal framework and precedents: Section 69C of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to make additions when unexplained expenditure or investments are found to be bogus or accommodation entries. The principle is to disallow bogus purchases that do not represent genuine business transactions. Judicial precedents including the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. emphasize that once purchases are established as bogus, additions should not be restricted to a mere percentage but should reflect the full amount. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO initially disallowed 20% of purchases amounting to Rs. 15,23,887/-, relying on information from the Sales Tax Department and DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai identifying three hawala parties involved in accommodation entries. Notices under section 133(6) issued to these parties were either returned unserved or unanswered, and the assessee failed to produce delivery challans, octroi receipts, or transportation documents to prove genuineness of purchases. The CIT(A), however, restricted the addition to 4.40%, which represented the gross profit margin declared by the assessee, reasoning that the sales were not disputed and that the assessee had shown net profit, implying some genuineness in business operations. Key evidence and findings: The AO's findings highlighted non-response from hawala parties and lack of documentary proof for delivery. The assessee produced ledger accounts and bank statements but failed to link purchases with sales via stock registers or movement of goods. The CIT(A) noted the AO did not dispute sales, but this was contradicted by the AO's own assessment order. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred in accepting the genuineness of sales without proper linkage to purchases and delivery. It held that the AO's 20% addition was reasonable but considered it excessive and directed a middle ground disallowance of 10% of the impugned purchases to prevent revenue leakage. Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the CIT(A) ignored critical facts such as non-response of hawala parties and the DGIT report, while the assessee argued that sales were genuine and that the CIT(A)'s order was reasonable. The Tribunal sided with the revenue's position on the need for a higher addition but moderated the AO's quantum. Conclusion: The addition on bogus purchases cannot be restricted to the gross profit margin of 4.40%. A disallowance of 10% of such purchases is fair and justified. Issue 3 & 4: Use of gross profit ratio from regular books for estimating income from bogus purchases Legal framework and precedents: Estimating income from bogus purchases involves assessing the profit element that would have been earned had the purchases been genuine. However, when purchases are inflated through bogus invoices, the gross profit ratio derived from regular books may not be reliable. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) applied the gross profit ratio of 4.40% from the regular books to the total bogus purchases to estimate income. The revenue contended that this approach ignored the fact that bogus invoices artificially inflate purchase prices, making such comparison inappropriate. Key evidence and findings: The assessee's gross profit ratio was consistent with declared sales and net profit. However, the AO found no evidence of actual delivery or genuine transactions to support inflated purchases. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's argument that the gross profit ratio from regular books cannot be blindly applied to bogus purchases, as it ignores the artificial inflation. However, the Tribunal also recognized that the AO's 20% addition was excessive and that a reasonable percentage (10%) would suffice. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's reliance on gross profit ratio was rejected as insufficient proof of genuineness. The Tribunal balanced the need to penalize bogus entries with the principle of fairness. Conclusion: The gross profit ratio from regular books cannot be mechanically applied to bogus purchases; a reasonable estimation must consider the nature of transactions. Issue 5 & 6: Consideration of reasons for procuring bogus invoices and statutory disallowance under VAT and Income Tax Acts Legal framework and precedents: Section 74(1A) of the Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 disallows input tax credit on bogus purchases. Section 37 of the Income Tax Act disallows expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Judicial decisions emphasize that procuring bogus invoices is an infraction and disallowance is warranted. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) did not consider these statutory provisions in depth and restricted additions to 4.40%, ignoring that the purchases were not allowable expenses. Key evidence and findings: The existence of bogus purchases was undisputed, and the assessee failed to demonstrate actual delivery or business purpose. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal noted the statutory provisions but did not impose the full disallowance sought by the revenue, opting for a 10% addition instead. Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue stressed statutory disallowance, while the assessee relied on partial acceptance of purchases. The Tribunal balanced these positions. Conclusion: While statutory disallowances apply, the Tribunal moderated the quantum of addition. Issue 7, 8 & 9: Applicability of Supreme Court and High Court precedents on bogus purchases and additions Legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court in M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. held that once purchases are proved bogus, additions should not be restricted to a percentage but reflect the full amount. The High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kanak Impex upheld 100% addition and rejected ITAT's approach of estimating profit rates on bogus purchases. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) did not follow these precedents strictly and restricted additions to 4.40%. The Tribunal acknowledged these precedents but noted the factual distinctions and the need for a balanced approach. Key evidence and findings: The case involved non-response by hawala parties and lack of delivery proof, aligning with the factual matrix in the precedents. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal did not fully endorse the precedent of 100% addition but increased the addition to 10%, reflecting a compromise. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue relied on binding precedents for full addition; assessee relied on facts and CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal adopted a middle path. Conclusion: Precedents support full addition, but Tribunal allowed partial addition based on case facts. Issue 10: Consistency with other ITAT and higher court decisions on bogus purchases Legal framework and precedents: ITAT Ahmedabad and higher courts have upheld disallowance of bogus purchases where parties failed to prove genuineness. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recognized these decisions but considered the quantum of addition should be fair and reasonable. Key evidence and findings: Similar facts of non-genuine purchases and non-response by parties were present. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied a 10% disallowance, consistent with the principle of penalizing bogus purchases but not necessarily imposing 100% addition. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue urged strict adherence to precedent; assessee sought leniency. Conclusion: Partial disallowance is justified. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that:
This establishes the principle that while bogus purchases must be disallowed, the quantum of addition should be balanced and based on facts and evidence rather than a rigid application of gross profit ratios or full disallowance in every case. The Tribunal also underscored the importance of linkage between purchases and sales and the necessity of documentary proof such as delivery challans and transportation receipts to substantiate genuineness. It recognized the relevance of judicial precedents but emphasized that the facts of each case must guide the extent of addition.
|
