ITAT Mumbai adjusts income assessment, directs AO to estimate income at 3% of alleged purchases

The ITAT Mumbai partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the assessment of income based on alleged bogus purchases. The ITAT directed the AO to estimate the income at 3% of the alleged purchases, considering the assessee had already declared a GP ratio. This decision overturned the Ld. CIT(A)'s addition of Rs. 12,43,645 at a rate of 16% for the bogus purchases. The assessee's income assessment for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was thus adjusted accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of income based on alleged bogus purchases.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee initially declared a total income of Rs. 3,86,900, but the assessing officer reopened the assessment after receiving information from the sales tax department regarding alleged bogus purchases. The AO made an addition of Rs. 12,43,645 at a rate of 16% on account of these bogus purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT Mumbai.

During the appeal, the Ld. AR argued that the 16% estimation by the Ld. CIT(A) was too high, considering the assessee had already declared a GP ratio. The Ld. AR relied on judgments by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT where a 3% estimation was used for similar cases. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. The ITAT referred to a previous case where it was held that the assessee failed to conclusively prove the purchases, leading to an estimation of the profit element embedded in the transactions. Despite the GP rate declared by the assessee and the applicable VAT rate, the ITAT restricted the estimation to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases.

Based on this decision, the ITAT directed the AO to estimate the income at 3% of the alleged purchases, as the assessee had already declared a GP ratio. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the AO was instructed to recompute the income accordingly.

---