Tribunal confirms CIT(A)'s decision on bogus purchases, commission expenses, and disallowance under section 14A.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of bogus purchases and commission expenses. It confirmed that purchases from non-genuine parties should only be taxed on the profit element. The tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that estimated commission expenses without evidence are not valid. Additionally, the tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance under section 14A, as there was no material from the search leading to the disallowance. The appeal by the AO was dismissed, and the order was issued on 7th February 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition on account of bogus purchases.
2. Addition of commission expenses.
3. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Restriction of Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases:
The Assessing Officer (AO) challenged the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases from Rs. 1.70 crores to Rs. 12.06 lakhs. During the search proceedings, it was found that the assessee had booked bogus expenditure by obtaining bogus purchase bills from various entities. The AO directed the assessee to substantiate the purchases by producing ledger confirmations, bills, lorry receipts, delivery challans, etc. Despite the explanations provided by the assessee, the AO held that sufficient evidence existed to show that the assessee had made bogus purchases. The statements of certain individuals indicated that bogus bills were issued, and the sales tax department identified some entities as providers of bogus invoices. The AO added back the purchase amount of Rs. 1.70 crores to the total income of the assessee.

The CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and judicial pronouncements, noting that the sales tax department listed parties engaged in issuing bogus bills. The CIT(A) held that the AO had accepted the sales made by the assessee and found no discrepancies in the stock or payment routes through banking channels. The CIT(A) concluded that the primary motive behind availing bogus bills was to save on the gross profit rate and upheld the disallowance to the extent of 7.09% of the peak purchases.

Upon appeal, the tribunal found no defect in the approach of the CIT(A), emphasizing that without purchases, there cannot be any sales. The tribunal referred to the judgments in Bholanath Poly Fab and Simit P Sheth, which held that if the purchases were made from bogus parties, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be subjected to tax. The tribunal confirmed that the case involved purchases from non-genuine parties and not bogus purchases, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

2. Addition of Commission Expenses:
The AO observed that the assessee would have incurred commission expenses at the rate of 1% for availing bogus bills and added an amount of Rs. 1,70,223/- based on this estimation. The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that the addition was purely based on estimates without any evidence of incurring such expenditure. The CIT(A) held that estimated commission expenses could not be upheld without any cogent material.

The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that no ad hoc disallowance can be made without relying upon any substantial evidence. The tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the AO's second ground of appeal.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The AO disallowed Rs. 37.70 lakhs under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, due to contradictions in the details of direct and indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. The AO noted that the assessee had made investments in unquoted shares of its associate sister concern and incurred financial costs related to loans and advances. The disallowance included expenditure directly related to earning exempt income and a percentage of the average value of investments.

The assessee challenged the disallowance before the CIT(A), arguing that additions not related to incriminating material yielded by the search could not be made under section 153A in non-abated assessments. The CIT(A) referred to the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., upheld by the Bombay High Court, and noted that the assessment for the year under appeal could not be said to be pending or abated. The CIT(A) found no material from the search leading to the disallowance under section 14A and deleted the disallowance.

The tribunal found no legal or factual infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as it followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. The tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and decided the last ground of appeal against the AO.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the AO was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 7th February 2018.

---