2018 (2) TMI 1971 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence in hawala transaction case.

M/s Muhta Markfin (P.) Limited Versus I.T. O-5 (2) (3), Mumbai

The appeal against the dismissal of grounds of appeal by CIT(A) and the addition based on hawala transactions was unsuccessful. The assessee's failure to ... Bogus purchase - assessee as a beneficiary of the hawala transactions - purchases from the open/grey market - CIT-A upheld the disallowance made by the A.O @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- As the profit element accounted for by the assessee in its regular books of accounts pertains to the profit which it would have made from selling the goods under consideration, therefore, the same would have no bearing on the quantification of the monetary benefit involved in making of purchases by the assessee at a lower price from the open/grey market, as in comparison to purchases made from a registered dealer. Addition/disallowance made by the lower authorities @ 12.5% is in respect of the monetary benefit which the assessee would have generated from making of the purchases from the open/grey market. We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the addition/disallowance @ 12.5% of the value of the bogus purchases so made by the A.O had rightly been upheld by the CIT(A). We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations uphold the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. Issues:- Dismissal of grounds of appeal by CIT(A) without considering appellant's submission- Addition of Rs. 2,76,854/- by AO based on hawala transactions- Failure of assessee to substantiate genuineness of purchase transactions- CIT(A) upholding AO's addition/disallowance @ 12.5% of bogus purchases- Dismissal of appeal by ITAT MumbaiAnalysis:Issue 1: Dismissal of grounds of appeal by CIT(A)The appeal was against the order passed by the CIT(A)-10, Mumbai, for AY 2009-10, arising from the order under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant raised grounds of appeal regarding the dismissal of their submissions and upholding the addition made by the Income Tax Officer.Issue 2: Addition based on hawala transactionsThe AO reopened the case of the assessee under Sec. 147 of the Act based on information from the sales tax department regarding bogus purchase bills. The AO concluded that the assessee had inflated purchase prices using fictitious invoices and made an addition of Rs. 2,76,854/- in the assessee's hands.Issue 3: Failure to substantiate genuineness of purchase transactionsThe assessee failed to prove the authenticity of purchase transactions, leading the AO to characterize them as bogus. Despite directions, the assessee did not produce necessary evidence or parties for examination, resulting in the rejection of the genuineness of transactions.Issue 4: CIT(A) upholding addition/disallowanceThe CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the lack of documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The CIT(A) observed that purchases were made from the open/grey market, leading to a benefit in terms of tax savings. The disallowance @ 12.5% of bogus purchases was upheld based on previous judgments and the profit element involved in such transactions.Issue 5: Dismissal of appeal by ITAT MumbaiThe ITAT Mumbai dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of purchases and that the addition/disallowance @ 12.5% was rightly upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT agreed with the lower authorities' decision and found no infirmity in the order.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment while preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.