Tribunal limits addition on alleged bogus purchases to 10%, upholding CIT(A)'s decision under IT Act

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases, resulting in an addition of Rs. 7,47,781 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2010-11 under section 143(3) of the IT Act. The tribunal determined that the purchases were not bogus but indicated potential underreporting of income by dealing with unregistered dealers. It directed the AO to limit the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the revenue's appeal and partially allowing the assessee's cross objection. The decision was rendered on October 9, 2017.

---

---

Issues:
- Addition of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases
- Validity of addition made by AO
- CIT(A) decision on the genuineness of purchases
- Cross objection by assessee against CIT(A) decision
- AO's estimation of profit and subsequent appeal by revenue

Analysis:
The appeal and cross objection arose from the order of the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai concerning the assessment year 2010-11 under section 143(3) of the IT Act. The revenue contested the addition of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases, which the AO initially considered at 100%. The AO based this addition on information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department regarding purchases from purportedly non-genuine suppliers. Despite the assessee providing some details, the AO deemed the suppliers non-genuine, rejecting the books of accounts and adding the entire amount of the suspected purchases to the assessee's income.

The CIT(A) found the purchases not bogus as the suppliers were registered dealers, suggesting that the assessee may have avoided taxes on these purchases. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases, resulting in an addition of Rs. 7,47,781. The assessee, however, filed a cross objection against this decision.

Upon review, the tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing and trading of metals. The AO's addition was based on purchases from suppliers flagged by the Sales Tax Department. The CIT(A) opined that the purchases were not bogus but potentially involved underreporting income by dealing with unregistered dealers. The CIT(A) considered the extensive documentation provided by the assessee, including bills, invoices, bank statements, and confirmations from suppliers. Considering the profit rate declared by the assessee and relevant judicial precedents, the tribunal modified the lower authorities' decision. It directed the AO to limit the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, contrary to the 12.5% upheld by the CIT(A).

Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal while partially allowing the assessee's cross objection. The decision was pronounced on October 9, 2017.

---