2015 (11) TMI 20 - AT - Income Tax

FAA Upheld Disallowance of Purchases, Tribunal Limited Disallowance, Burden of Proof on Assessee

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the disallowance of purchases totaling Rs. 3.09 Crores due to non-verifiability, citing lack of evidence and ... Disallowance at 11 % Net profit on entire bogus purchases - Held that:- As the assessee had claimed that all the transaction were through banking channels the claim had to be verified to find out the trail of the cheques. It appears that because of time constraint the AO could no complete the inquiries that he had started in right direction. The fact mentioned by the FAA that it is a case of a builder and consumption of goods has not been doubted. In such cases, generally the peak investment is added to the total income of the assessee, as the whole turnover cannot be held to be unaccounted income or investment without supporting evidences. In these peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice the disallowance should be restricted to 11% for the alleged doubtful purchases i.e. ₹ 3.09 Crores or to the peak investment whichever is higher. In short, we are partly reversing the order of the FAA. Effective ground of appeal filed by the AO is rejected. In light of our discussion, CO filed by the assessee is treated as infructuous. - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:- Disallowance of purchases due to non-verifiability- Estimation of net profit at 11% on turnover- Failure to produce parties to prove genuineness of purchases- Application of uniform rate of net profit on entire purchasesDisallowance of Purchases due to Non-Verifiability:The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed purchases totaling to Rs. 3.09 Crores made from seven parties due to non-verifiability. The AO observed that the assessee failed to produce the parties for verification, notices to the parties were not served, and two parties denied any transactions with the assessee. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the disallowance, stating that the genuineness of purchases was not established. The FAA considered the lack of evidence and the discrepancies in the transactions, leading to the disallowance. The FAA also highlighted the decrease in gross profit and net profit compared to the previous year, indicating a potential issue with the declared income.Estimation of Net Profit at 11% on Turnover:The FAA estimated the net profit at 11% on the turnover of the appellant, which the assessee contested. The assessee argued that such profit margin was not feasible in the civil contractor business. However, the FAA justified the estimation based on the discrepancies in the purchases and the overall financial performance of the assessee. The FAA referred to various case laws and comparative analysis to support the decision to apply a specific net profit rate.Failure to Produce Parties to Prove Genuineness of Purchases:The core issue revolved around the failure of the assessee to produce the parties to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The AO and FAA emphasized the importance of verifying the transactions through physical evidence and examination of the involved parties. The FAA concluded that the assessee's explanations and provided documents were insufficient to establish the authenticity of the purchases. The lack of cooperation in producing the parties for verification significantly impacted the outcome of the assessment.Application of Uniform Rate of Net Profit on Entire Purchases:The FAA applied a uniform rate of net profit on the entire purchases made by the assessee, leading to a reduction in the disallowance amount. The AR argued against this approach, advocating for a reasonable rate of gross profit/net profit to be applied specifically to the doubtful purchases. The tribunal acknowledged the need for a more nuanced evaluation of the profit margins and the specific circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the tribunal partially reversed the FAA's decision and restricted the disallowance to 11% of the alleged doubtful purchases or the peak investment, whichever was higher.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the critical aspects of verifying purchases, estimating profit margins, and the burden of proof on the assessee to establish the genuineness of transactions. The decision underscored the importance of thorough documentation, cooperation with authorities, and a nuanced approach to assessing income and expenses in complex business operations.