2019 (12) TMI 450 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate tribunal upholds decision on non-genuine purchase disallowance for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11

Income Tax Officer, Ward -3 (2), Kalyan Versus Shri Paras Ramniklal Shah

Income Tax Officer, Ward -3 (2), Kalyan Versus Shri Paras Ramniklal Shah - TMI Issues Involved:1. Reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.2. Treatment of purchases as non-genuine/bogus.3. Disallowance of entire purchases by the Assessing Officer.4. Restriction of disallowance to 5% by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).5. Examination of evidence and cross-examination requests.6. Reliance on various judicial precedents and case laws.7. Estimation of Net Profit (NP) rate.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Reopening of Assessments under Section 147:The assessments for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2009-10 and 2010-11 were reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), Pune. The information indicated that the assessee had availed accommodation entries from various dealers who provided such entries without actual transportation of goods.2. Treatment of Purchases as Non-Genuine/Bogus:The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the purchases made by the assessee as non-genuine, suspecting that the assessee had only obtained accommodation entries without actual transportation of materials. The AO's conclusion was based on statements from the dealers, who admitted to issuing only accommodation bills without actual sales.3. Disallowance of Entire Purchases by the Assessing Officer:The AO disallowed the entire purchases amounting to Rs. 9,39,991/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 4,12,664/- for A.Y. 2010-11, treating them as bogus and adding these amounts to the income of the assessee.4. Restriction of Disallowance to 5% by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] restricted the disallowance to 5% of the non-genuine purchases for both assessment years. The CIT(A) considered the nature of the assessee's business and various judicial precedents to arrive at this conclusion.5. Examination of Evidence and Cross-Examination Requests:The assessee provided copies of purchase bills, item-wise stock ledger, ledger accounts, and evidence of payments made through cheques to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. The assessee also requested cross-examination of the dealers whose statements were relied upon by the AO. However, the AO was not convinced and maintained the disallowance.6. Reliance on Various Judicial Precedents and Case Laws:The CIT(A) referred to several case laws, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC), which emphasized that mere documentation and payment through banking channels do not establish the genuineness of transactions. The CIT(A) also noted that different courts have upheld disallowances ranging from 25% to 100% of bogus purchases based on the facts of each case.7. Estimation of Net Profit (NP) Rate:The CIT(A) estimated the Net Profit (NP) rate at 5% of the turnover for the relevant assessment years, as per the provisions of Section 44AF of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) compared the NP rates declared by the assessee in the years under appeal with those in preceding and subsequent years, concluding that the NP rates declared were lower than the prescribed 5%.Final Judgment:The appellate tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in restricting the disallowance to 5% of the purchases. The tribunal noted that the revenue did not rebut the findings and observations of the CIT(A) with evidence. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.Conclusion:The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the non-genuine purchases for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11, dismissing the revenue's appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating the genuineness of transactions and the role of judicial precedents in determining reasonable disallowances.