2019 (9) TMI 1256 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal adjusts profit rate on bogus purchases in Income-tax Act assessment appeal

Hiren Narayandas Shah, Prop. Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2

The Tribunal upheld the re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to information received on bogus purchases. It ... Bogus purchases u/s 69C - profit percentage at the rate of 25% on bogus purchases by CIT-A - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has restricted the profit rate at the rate of 25%, which according to us is on higher side going by the nature of business of the assessee i.e. trading in Iron, Steel & cement on semi-wholesale basis. We are in agreement with the contentions raised by the assessee before CIT(A) and according to us a profit rate of 25% is on higher side by going through the nature of the business of the assessee and the fact that the business of Iron, Steel & Cement does not give higher profits. Even, the assessee has paid the VAT element on the bogus purchases. Hence, we direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 8% of the bogus purchases and compute the income accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Issues:- Validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Addition of suppressed gross profit due to unproved purchases- Estimation of profit percentage on bogus purchasesAnalysis:Issue 1: Validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961The appellant contested the re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that it lacked an independent and valid belief by the Assessing Officer (AO) that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The appellant claimed that the re-opening was without merit and sought to quash the assessment order. However, the Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to invalidate the re-opening, as the AO had received information regarding bogus purchases from hawala parties, leading to the need for further investigation. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the re-opening of the assessment under section 147.Issue 2: Addition of suppressed gross profit due to unproved purchasesThe Assessing Officer had made an addition to the appellant's income based on unproved purchases from hawala parties. The appellant provided documentary evidence during assessment and appellate proceedings to establish the genuineness of these purchases, including payment receipts and account transactions. Despite the appellant's efforts, the AO deemed the purchases unverified and added the entire amount to the appellant's income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) later restricted the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases, considering the appellant's profit history and the nature of the business. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) and sustained the disallowance of a portion of the purchases as suppressed gross profit.Issue 3: Estimation of profit percentage on bogus purchasesThe Tribunal reviewed the profit rate estimation on bogus purchases, initially set at 25% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the profit rate of 25% was excessive given the nature of the appellant's business, which involved trading in Iron, Steel & cement on a semi-wholesale basis. Considering the business type and the fact that the appellant had paid VAT on the bogus purchases, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the income using a profit rate of 8% on the bogus purchases. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, recognizing that a profit rate of 25% was disproportionate and adjusted it to 8% to align with the business's profitability expectations.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the re-opening of the assessment, sustained the disallowance of suppressed gross profit, and revised the profit rate estimation on bogus purchases to 8%, partially allowing the appeal.