Tribunal upholds reassessment, rejects accounts, and grants relief to assessee in tax dispute.

The Tribunal upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was justified based on unverifiable purchases. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the trading addition made by applying a 12% G.P. rate and upheld the declared G.P. rate of 9.34%, providing relief to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Application of Gross Profit (G.P.) rate on declared turnover and resultant trading addition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148:
- The assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148, arguing that the notice was issued solely based on information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, without the Assessing Officer (A.O.) forming an independent belief.
- The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had received specific information from the Investigation Wing regarding the involvement of the assessee in obtaining accommodation entries from Rajendra Jain Group, which led to the belief that income had escaped assessment.
- The Tribunal upheld the A.O.'s action, citing the decision in Ankit Agrochem (P) Ltd. Vs JCIT, where it was held that proceedings under Section 147 could be initiated based on an investigation report. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O. had sufficient cause to reopen the assessment.

2. Rejection of Books of Accounts Under Section 145(3):
- The A.O. rejected the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to unverifiable purchases amounting to Rs. 11,60,43,373/-, leading to a trading addition of Rs. 2,90,10,840/-.
- The assessee argued that all necessary documents, including purchase invoices, VAT registration, PAN details, and bank statements, were provided to substantiate the purchases.
- The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the genuineness of the purchases. It referred to various judgments, including S.P. Agarwalla Alias Sukhdev Prasad Agarwala Vs. ITO, where it was held that mere statements from third parties without corroborative evidence could not be the sole basis for rejecting purchases.
- The Tribunal concluded that the A.O.'s reliance on the judgment in Sanjay Oil Cake Industries was misplaced, as the facts of that case were different. The Tribunal noted that the parties from whom purchases were made were traceable and had provided confirmations.

3. Application of G.P. Rate on Declared Turnover and Resultant Trading Addition:
- The CIT(A) directed the application of a 12% G.P. rate on the declared turnover, resulting in an addition of Rs. 41,23,468/-, while giving relief of Rs. 2,48,87,372/- to the assessee.
- The assessee contended that the G.P. rate of 12% was arbitrary and that the declared G.P. rate of 9.34% was justified due to the shift in business from colored gemstones to diamonds, which typically have lower profit margins.
- The Tribunal referred to past cases, including CIT Vs. Simit P. Seth and Vijay Kedia (HUF) Vs. ACIT, where it was held that only the profit element in unverifiable purchases should be added to income, not the entire purchase amount.
- The Tribunal found that the assessee's G.P. rate for the year under consideration was reasonable given the change in business nature and upheld the declared G.P. rate of 9.34%. It directed the deletion of the addition made by applying the 12% G.P. rate.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148.
- The rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was found to be justified based on unverifiable purchases.
- The Tribunal directed the deletion of the trading addition made by applying a 12% G.P. rate and upheld the declared G.P. rate of 9.34%, providing relief to the assessee.

Order Pronounced:
- The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18th January 2021.

---