ITAT confirms adjustment of NP rate, deletion of unexplained sundry creditors; Revenue appeal dismissed

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to adjust the NP rate to 2% of turnover instead of disallowing 15% of unregistered dealer purchases, as the AO lacked evidence of inflated purchases. Additionally, the ITAT affirmed the deletion of the addition for unexplained sundry creditors, as these were trade credits settled in the subsequent year. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition by adopting Net Profit (NP) at 2% of the turnover instead of disallowance of 15% of total unregistered dealer (URD) purchases.
2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained sundry creditors.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Restriction of Addition by Adopting NP at 2% of Turnover:
The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had made purchases of waste-paper from unregistered dealers amounting to Rs. 2,50,73,632/-. The assessee failed to produce purchase bills, leading the AO to believe that 15% of these purchases were inflated and unverifiable, resulting in a disallowance of Rs. 37,61,045/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] partially granted relief by directing the AO to adopt NP at 2% of the turnover instead of the disallowance made by the AO. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had not provided any evidence of bogus or inflated purchases and had not doubted the sales figures. The CIT(A) also considered similar cases where a lower gross profit (GP) rate was applied and concluded that a 15% margin was unrealistic for the waste-paper trading business. Thus, the CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt a 2% NP rate, which was upheld by the ITAT as the Revenue could not provide any material to counter the CIT(A)’s findings.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Sundry Creditors:
During the assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed Rs. 22,29,345/- as unexplained credits due to the assessee's failure to furnish confirmations from the creditors. The CIT(A) reversed this disallowance, noting that the credit balances pertained to trade credits that were paid off in the subsequent year. The CIT(A) highlighted that the AO should have verified the veracity of these trade credits before making the disallowance. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the credits were trade balances paid in the subsequent year and not unexplained credits. The Revenue could not provide any evidence to contradict the CIT(A)’s findings.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)’s decisions on both issues. The NP rate was correctly adjusted to 2%, and the addition for unexplained sundry creditors was rightly deleted.

---