2017 (10) TMI 1250 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal limits profit addition in purchases, directs 5% estimation. Assessee's appeals partly allowed.

ACIT 21 (3), Mumbai Versus Shri Siddharth Praful Mehta (Prop. M/s. Syndrome Technologies) And Vice-Versa

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the purchases. The Tribunal directed the AO to ... Bogus purchases - Profit estimation - Held that:- As noticed that the Sales tax official has written a reply to the AO, wherein, he was mentioning about the failure of the suppliers to remit the sales tax liability. Since the assessee was dealing in products of reputed companies, whose rates are standardized one, we are of the view that the possibility of making any profit out of such products is also remote. However, there is a possibility that the assessee might have saved VAT tax from such purchases. Keeping in view the facts surrounding the case, we are of the view that the profit that would have been made by the assessee may be estimated at 5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases of both the years and in our view, the same would take care of revenue leakage, if any in both the years. The assessee has submitted that the value of purchases made from the suspicious suppliers was only ₹ 1,13,28,156/- in AY 2009-10 and ₹ 3,77,84,783/- in AY 2010-11. The AO is directed to verify the same and accordingly estimate the profit at 5% on the actual value of purchases made from the suspicious dealers in the years under consideration. The orders passed by Ld CIT(A) would stand modified accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Bogus Purchases2. Reopening of Assessments3. Onus of Proof4. Reliance on Sales Tax Department Information5. Verification of Suppliers6. Estimation of ProfitDetailed Analysis:1. Bogus Purchases:The primary issue in these cross appeals was the addition relating to bogus purchases, which was partially confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee, a proprietor of M/s Syndrome Technologies, was alleged to have made purchases from dealers providing accommodation bills without actual supply of materials. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the entire amount of purchases, asserting that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of these purchases.2. Reopening of Assessments:The assessments for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were reopened based on information from the Sales Tax Department indicating that certain dealers were issuing accommodation bills. The AO issued notices under sections 133(6) and 131 of the Income Tax Act to the suppliers, which were returned unserved, leading to the conclusion that the purchases were not genuine.3. Onus of Proof:The AO held that the onus to prove the genuineness of purchases was on the assessee, which was not discharged satisfactorily. The AO relied on the fact that the suppliers admitted to providing accommodation bills and that the assessee could not produce these suppliers for verification.4. Reliance on Sales Tax Department Information:The AO based his decision heavily on the information and statements obtained from the Sales Tax Department, which indicated that the suppliers had not actually supplied the goods. However, the CIT(A) opined that reliance on such statements without independent investigation was not justified. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO should have conducted further enquiries rather than solely relying on the Sales Tax Department's findings.5. Verification of Suppliers:The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the existence of the suppliers or the authenticity of the transactions. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had provided all necessary documents, including invoices, payment details, and VAT registration numbers, which the AO did not adequately scrutinize.6. Estimation of Profit:The CIT(A) concluded that disallowing the entire purchase amount was not justified, especially since the sales made by the assessee were not in doubt. Instead, the CIT(A) suggested that only the profit element embedded in the purchases should be added. Consequently, the CIT(A) estimated the profit based on the gross profit rates disclosed by the assessee in its books of accounts, which were 13.77% for AY 2009-10 and 12% for AY 2010-11.Final Judgment:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the purchases. The Tribunal agreed that the sales were above suspicion and that the assessee had correlated the purchases with sales. However, the Tribunal modified the profit estimation, directing the AO to estimate the profit at 5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases for both assessment years, considering the standardized rates of the products dealt with by the assessee.Conclusion:The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed. The AO was directed to verify the actual value of purchases from the suspicious suppliers and estimate the profit at 5% accordingly. The orders passed by the CIT(A) were modified to this extent.