Tribunal Upholds Reassessment in Tax Appeal, Allows 10% GP Rate Adjustment

The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals of the assessee, upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus bills. The Tribunal dismissed the ground of appeal against the reassessment proceedings. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the non-service of notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, confirming that notices were duly dispatched. Regarding the merits of addition on account of bogus purchases, the Tribunal allowed a 10% GP rate over and above the declared GP in the books of account.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-service of notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act.
3. Merits of addition on account of bogus purchases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reassessment Proceedings
The appeals by the assessee were against the CIT(A)'s consolidated order for assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Despite the absence of the assessee during the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeals as the issue raised was covered by earlier orders. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on information from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus bills. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment citing legal precedence. The Tribunal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissed the ground of appeal against the reassessment proceedings.

Issue 2: Non-Service of Notice
The assessee challenged the non-service of notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) verified the dispatch register and confirmed that notices were duly dispatched and sent by speed post. The Tribunal found no merit in the plea against the non-service of notice, thereby upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

Issue 3: Merits of Addition on Bogus Purchases
The primary issue was the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 20% of purchases as additional gross profit for the relevant year. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that a higher gross profit rate could be applied due to maintained quantitative details by the assessee. Consequently, a 10% GP rate over and above the declared GP in the books of account was applied to calculate the additional income. The ground of appeal related to bogus purchases was partly allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed both appeals of the assessee, applying relevant legal principles and precedents to address the issues raised. The judgment was pronounced on March 23, 2018, by the Tribunal members Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM, and Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM.

---