Tribunal Validates Reopening, Reduces Disallowance to 6% for Fair Tax Assessment

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (5), Surat Versus Pankaj K. Choudhary And (Vice-Versa) And The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (5), Surat. Versus Shri Manish Agarwal And (Vice-Versa) And Manish Chordia Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3) (8), Surat. And The ITO, Ward-3 (1) (5), Surat. And Om Prakash S. Laddha Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3) (8), Surat. And (Vice-Versa) And Rajkumar D. Jain Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (5), Surat And The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (5), Surat Versus Shri Gautam Pukhraj Mehta And (Vice-Versa)

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (5), Surat Versus Pankaj K. Choudhary And (Vice-Versa) And The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (5), Surat. Versus Shri ... Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of non-genuine purchases.
3. Estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases.
4. Procedural fairness in assessment proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening under Section 147:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) acted solely on third-party information without independent investigation. The AO received information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, indicating that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by the Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The Tribunal upheld the reopening, citing precedents from the Gujarat High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd and Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd, which allowed reopening based on credible information from the Investigation Wing about accommodation entries.

2. Disallowance of Non-Genuine Purchases:
The AO disallowed 100% of the purchases from entities managed by the Bhanwarlal Jain Group, treating them as bogus. The assessee provided various documents, such as purchase bills, bank statements, and stock registers, to substantiate the purchases. The AO, however, relied on the Investigation Wing's report and the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct an independent investigation or reject the assessee's books of accounts, which showed that the purchases were routed through banking channels.

3. Estimation of Profit on Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance from 100% to 12.5%, citing the Tribunal's decision in Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had shown a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 0.78%, which was lower than the industry average. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that a 6% disallowance of the disputed purchases would be reasonable, considering the overall facts and circumstances.

4. Procedural Fairness in Assessment Proceedings:
The assessee argued that the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the alleged hawala dealers and did not furnish the statements relied upon. The Tribunal observed that the AO's reliance on the Investigation Wing's report without providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the evidence was procedurally unfair. The Tribunal emphasized that tax authorities should only tax the income component of disputed transactions to prevent revenue leakage, aligning with the principle that procedural fairness is crucial in tax assessments.

Separate Judgments:
The Tribunal's decision applied consistently across multiple appeals involving different assessees and assessment years. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the revenue and partly allowed the appeals of the assessees by sustaining a 6% disallowance of the disputed purchases, ensuring consistency and fairness in the judgments.

Summary:
The Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening under Section 147 based on credible information from the Investigation Wing. It reduced the disallowance of non-genuine purchases to 6%, considering the procedural lapses by the AO and the need for a fair estimation of income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and consistency in tax assessments, ensuring that only the income component of disputed transactions is taxed.