2017 (9) TMI 2018 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchases from suspicious dealers warrant 12.50% addition, not full amount as income

M/s. Bharat Copy Centre Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT-2 (1) (1), Mumbai.

M/s. Bharat Copy Centre Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT-2 (1) (1), Mumbai. - TMI Issues:Validity of reopening of assessments; Opportunity of cross-examination not allowed; Disallowance of entire purchases as bogus purchases; Application of section 40A(3); Profit element embedded in purchases; Failure to prove genuineness of purchases; Discrepancies in purchase invoices; Disallowance upheld by Ld CIT(A) at 8%; Disallowance under section 40A(3) rejected; Addition sustained at 12.50%.Validity of reopening of assessments:The assessing officer received information from the sales tax department about suspicious dealers and observed purchases made by the assessee from such parties. The Tribunal found this information sufficient to justify the reopening of assessments, upholding the Ld CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of the reopening.Opportunity of cross-examination not allowed:The assessing officer reopened the assessment based on information from the sales tax department regarding suspicious dealers. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence for transportation and receipt of materials, leading to the conclusion that the assessee did not discharge the responsibility to prove the genuineness of purchases. Therefore, the contention regarding the lack of opportunity for cross-examination was rejected.Disallowance of entire purchases as bogus purchases:The AO disallowed purchases made from suspicious dealers in all three years as bogus purchases due to lack of evidence for transportation and receipt of goods, absence of stock register, and failure to prove genuineness. The Ld CIT(A) disagreed with the disallowance of entire purchases, considering the profit element embedded in the purchases. The Tribunal upheld the Ld CIT(A)'s decision and sustained the addition at 8% of the value of bogus purchases.Application of section 40A(3):The AO also considered the possibility of cash purchases and applied section 40A(3) as an alternative view. However, the Ld CIT(A) rejected this view, citing a precedent that the provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be applied without clear proof of actual cash purchases. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld CIT(A)'s decision on this matter.Profit element embedded in purchases:The Tribunal analyzed the purchases made by the assessee from suspicious dealers and the consumption of materials in job works. It was observed that the assessee could not maintain a stock register, making it difficult to prove consumption. The Tribunal agreed that the profit element embedded in the purchases should be assessed, ultimately sustaining the addition at 12.50% of the value of alleged bogus purchases in all three years.Failure to prove genuineness of purchases:The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence for transportation, receipt of goods, and the absence of a stock register. The assessee's inability to prove the genuineness of purchases led to the conclusion that the addition of 12.50% was justified. The Tribunal also considered the reduction in gross profit rates over the years, supporting the possibility of inflated purchase rates.Discrepancies in purchase invoices:The AO highlighted discrepancies in purchase invoices, such as missing details and lack of cheque information. Due to these discrepancies and the failure to prove genuineness, the AO disallowed purchases from suspicious dealers. The Tribunal supported the AO's decision to sustain the addition at 12.50% based on the available evidence and circumstances.Conclusion:After considering all arguments and evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeals and dismissed the assessee's appeals. The addition was sustained at 12.50% of the value of alleged bogus purchases for the assessment years in question.