2013 (10) TMI 1028 - HC - Income Tax

Reduction of disallowance for bogus purchases to 12.5% sustained; 30% yardstick rejected as a uniform standard

HC upheld the Tribunal's reduction of the disallowance for bogus purchases to 12.5% of such purchases, rejecting the Revenue's challenge to apply a 30% ... Estimated the possible profit out of purchases made through non-genuine parties - Addition on account of bogus purchases - Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in restricting the disallowance to the extent of 12.5 percent of the bogus purchase, without appreciating the factual aspect and by ignoring the manifest evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer and overlooking the ratio laid down by the hon'ble High Court in the case of Pawanraj B. Bokadia [2011 (9) TMI 973 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]? Held that:- Commissioner adopted the ratio of 30 percent of such total sales. The Tribunal, however, scaled down to 12.5 percent. We may notice that in the immediately preceding year to the assessment year under consideration the assessee had declared the gross profit at 3.56 percent of the total turnover. If the yardstick of 30 percent., as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), is accepted the gross profit rate will be much higher. In essence, the Tribunal only estimated the possible profit out of purchases made through non-genuine parties. No question of law in such estimation would arise. The estimation of rate of profit return must necessarily vary with the nature of business and no uniform yardstick can be adopted - Disallowance to the extent of 12.5 percent is allowed – Decided against the Revenue. Issues:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restricting the disallowance to 12.5 percent of the bogus purchase amountRs.2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal erred in overturning the Assessing Officer's decision to make a full addition of the bogus purchase amountRs.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Tribunal's decision on the disallowance of a portion of the alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee in the steel trading business. The Assessing Officer treated the purchases as entirely bogus and added the full amount to the gross profit. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the addition, concluding that only 30 percent of the purchase cost should be retained as probable profit. The Tribunal further reduced this to 12.5 percent, partially allowing the assessee's appeal. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the full amount should have been added back based on the Division Bench's decision in a similar case.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) believed that the purchases were not entirely bogus but made from other parties in the open market. The Court agreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that the crucial issue was whether the purchases were completely non-existent or made from different sources. The Court held that only the profit element embedded in the purchases, not the entire purchase price, should be added to the assessee's income. This approach was supported by previous court decisions, including the cases of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. and CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab P. Ltd. The Court highlighted that if no purchases were made at all, then the entire amount should be added back, as seen in the case of Asst. CIT (OSC) v. Pawanraj B. Bokadia.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the tax appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to estimate the fair profit rate at 12.5 percent of the disputed purchases, considering the nature of the business and the varying profit rates. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between entirely bogus purchases and purchases made from different sources, ensuring that only the profit element is added to the assessee's income.