Tribunal limits bogus purchase disallowance, omits R&D allocation, deems assessment reopening academic.

The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases to 12.5% and directing the re-computation of income without allocating R&D expenses among units. The tribunal did not delve into the technicalities of the assessment reopening, considering it an academic exercise after addressing substantive issues on merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 148.
2. Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases.
3. Allocation of Research & Development (R&D) expenses among different manufacturing units.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147, arguing that there was no tangible material to justify the reopening. The original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), and the assessee had fully disclosed all relevant facts. The reopening was based solely on a report from the MVAT department, which the assessee contended was insufficient and sketchy information. The assessee also argued that there was no change in total income or tax payable even if the alleged bogus purchases were added, making the reopening unnecessary. The tribunal did not delve into the technicalities of the reopening, considering it an academic exercise after addressing the substantive issues on merits.

2. Disallowance of Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 50,18,436/- as alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer had treated purchases from M/s. Shah Trading Company and Dhulee Enterprise as non-genuine because notices issued under section 133(6) were returned unserved, and the assessee could not produce the parties for verification. The tribunal observed that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including invoices, delivery challans, purchase orders, and transport receipts, to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. Following precedents from the Gujarat High Court, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, acknowledging the possibility of purchases being made in the gray market.

3. Allocation of R&D Expenses Among Different Manufacturing Units:
The assessee argued that its R&D activities were not directly related to its manufacturing units, as the R&D division worked on future products and innovations. The R&D expenses were on futuristic research, and none of the qualifying undertakings benefited from the present research. The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to demonstrate that the R&D expenditure benefited the existing units eligible for deductions under sections 80IB and 80IC. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. CIT, the tribunal held that unless the R&D expenses directly related to the qualifying units, they could not be apportioned to those units. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income without allocating R&D expenses among the units, as the allocation was deemed baseless and unwarranted.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases to 12.5% and to recompute the income without allocating R&D expenses among the units. The tribunal did not address the technicalities of the reopening of assessment, focusing on the substantive issues instead.

---