2021 (7) TMI 285 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, deletes bogus purchase addition, disallows Section 14A expense.

Firepro Wireless & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C/o R.S. Ahuja & Co., CA Versus ACIT, Central Circle-11, New Delhi.

Firepro Wireless & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C/o R.S. Ahuja & Co., CA Versus ACIT, Central Circle-11, New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 15 lakhs on account of bogus purchases.2. Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,121/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 15 lakhs on account of bogus purchasesThe assessee, a private limited company dealing in computer hardware and IT services, was subjected to a search action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee made purchases worth Rs. 15 lakhs from M/s Jay Enn Infotech Pvt. Ltd., which was declared as a bogus entity providing accommodation entries. The AO added this amount to the assessee's total income due to the inability of the assessee to substantiate the purchases.The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, noting that the Tulip Group, to which the assessee belongs, had admitted to making bogus purchases from various entities, including M/s Jay Enn Infotech Pvt. Ltd., during the search proceedings. Despite the assessee's argument that no incriminating material was found for the assessment year 2007-08, the CIT(A) maintained the addition, citing the group's inability to substantiate purchases from the listed entities.The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that no incriminating material was found for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal referred to the coordinate Bench's decision in the case of Gulf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, where under similar circumstances, additions were deleted in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had already declared a profit of Rs. 61,276/- from the alleged bogus purchases, which was more than the gross profit rate. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no separate addition was warranted, and the entire addition of Rs. 15 lakhs was deleted.Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,121/- under Section 14AThe AO disallowed Rs. 1,00,121/- under Section 14A, stating that the assessee had made investments of Rs. 2 crores, and the provisions of Section 14A were applicable. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, reasoning that the assessee's main activity was investment, and considerable resources were utilized for this purpose.The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee did not receive any dividend income during the assessment year, a fact not disputed by the lower authorities. Referring to the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest vs. CIT, which held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in a year when no exempt income is earned, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, deleting the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs on account of bogus purchases and the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,121/- under Section 14A. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2021.