Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Entire amount cannot be added to income when assessee is not able to prove the genuineness of the party

Bimal jain
Supplier untraceability: restrict tax additions to the profit element and permit limited percentage adjustment with verification. Where a supplier is untraceable, purchases used to manufacture taxable finished goods should not be wholly added to income; instead, only the profit element should be treated as unexplained under bogus purchases, with a modest percentage of disputed purchases added and the matter remitted for verification of bank and fixed deposit records. (AI Summary)

The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/S ACCRA PAC (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD - 2022 (12) TMI 1077 - ITAT AHMEDABAD, partially allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Revenue Department confirming the addition of unexplained deposit as bogus purchases on the ground that the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of the party. Held that, only 10% of the purchase would be added to the Appellant’s income in case where the Appellant was unable to prove the supplier’s identity. Further remanded back the matter for verification.

Facts:

M/s. Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) was engaged in the business of manufacturing perfume and other beauty products. During the Financial Year 2010-11 the Appellant had purchased chemicals amounting to INR 7,71,22,502/- from one of the suppliers.

The Assessing Officer (“AO”) during the course of assessment observed that the Appellant has not furnished the PAN number of such supplier. Further, the supplier has shut the business and therefore, came to the conclusion that purchases were not genuine and should be added back to the income of the Appellant on the ground of bogus purchases as the Appellant was not able to prove the identity of the supplier.

Further, the AO found mis match in Fixed deposits amount, the amount in balance sheet was lower as compared to the amount furnished in Annual Information Return, the AO added the difference amount to the income of the Appellant.

The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (“the Respondent”) who vide Order dated December 22, 2017 (“the Impugned Order”) confirmed the additions made by the AO.

Being Aggrieved by the Order of the Respondent, the Appellant has filed this appeal.

The Appellant contention was that, since the Appellant’s outward sales is taxable and the Appellant is subject to Excise and tax Audit where auditors had not made any adverse opinion, therefore, the AO cannot add the entire purchases to the income of the Appellant.

Further, in case if the impugned amount is to be added then it should be restricted to reasonable amount as the Appellant only had gross profit margin of 7.63% of the turnover.

Furthermore, for the mis-match of fixed deposit amount the Appellant produced the balance confirmation sheet issued by the banker of the Appellant confirming the balance as stated in balance sheet. Therefore, Appellant was of the view the amount of fixed deposit was correctly stated in balance sheet and the excess amount added should be deleted.

Issue:

Whether the entire purchase should be added to the Appellant’s income where the supplier was not traceable?

Held:

The ITAT, Ahmedabad in M/S ACCRA PAC (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD - 2022 (12) TMI 1077 - ITAT AHMEDABAD, held as under:

  • Noted that, it would not be justified to disallow the entire purchase amount as the purchases were utilized for making the final finished product which is subject to tax and only the profit element should be added back to the income.
  • Observed that, that the balances standing at the end of the year in the balance sheet of the assessee were correct. Further, the bankers have confirmed the year end balances which tallies with the balances as per the books of the Appellant.
  • Held that, a certain percentage of such alleged bogus purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the Appellant. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, 10% of the purchases may be disallowed and added back to the income of the Appellant.
  • Remanded back the matter to the AO for verifying the correctness of the claim made by the Appellant in the issue of fixed deposit mis-match.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles