2021 (1) TMI 607 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue appeal partially allowed, disallowance restricted to 5% Gross Profit. Tribunal aligns with High Court precedent.

The Revenue's appeal against the disallowance of non-genuine purchases was partially allowed by the Tribunal, restricting the disallowance to 5% of the ... Disallowance of non-genuine purchases - CIT- A restricting the Gross Profit to 5%, restricted the disallowance of bogus purchases to the of 12.5% only - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has not referred GP for earlier or subsequent years or Net Profit in assessee’s own case. CIT(A) in a single sentence held that the assessee has merely shown Gross Profit of 1.66% of sales. In our view, in absence of any material evidence the ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of Mayank Diamonds Pvt Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 812 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . Therefore, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the gross profit, accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Issues:1. Disallowance of non-genuine purchases2. Application of Gross Profit estimation3. Failure to prove genuineness of purchases4. Compliance with procedural requirementsIssue 1: Disallowance of non-genuine purchasesThe appeal by Revenue was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of non-genuine purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added a substantial amount on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee. The AO noted that the purchasing parties belonged to a group known for providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. Despite the assessee providing various documents and explanations, the AO considered the purchases as non-genuine and added 100% of the alleged bogus purchases to the total income.Issue 2: Application of Gross Profit estimationOn appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the disallowances were restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Commissioner, while sustaining the purchases to a limited extent, considered the Gross Profit percentage of the assessee to determine the reasonableness of the disallowance. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the disallowance should be limited to 5% of the Gross Profit, following a precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in a similar case.Issue 3: Failure to prove genuineness of purchasesThe assessee contended that they had provided sufficient evidence of the purchases being genuine, including account confirmations, purchase bills, and stock registers. The assessee denied any business dealings with the group providing accommodation entries and questioned the reliance on third-party information without proper verification procedures. The Commissioner found merit in the assessee's submissions and noted the maintenance of detailed stock registers, ultimately deciding to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the Gross Profit.Issue 4: Compliance with procedural requirementsDuring the appeal hearing, despite the assessee's representative being informed and served notice, no appearance was made. The Tribunal proceeded with the appeal based on the material available on record and the submissions of the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Revenue and the lower authorities' orders, ultimately deciding to partly allow the Revenue's appeal by restricting the disallowance to 5% of the Gross Profit, following the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court.