2022 (5) TMI 675 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee, Deletes Rs. 25,03,321 Bogus Purchase Addition

The Assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2016-17, contesting the addition of Rs. 25,03,321 as bogus purchases. The Tribunal ruled in favor ... Addition on account of unexplained liability - outstanding balances of two parties M/s. Aarti Jewelers and M/s. Prakash Gold held to be bogus - HELD THAT:- As outstanding balance relating to M/s. Prakash Gold amounting to Rs. 12,05,026/-, the addition having been made finding it to be bogus, since the consistent finding of fact is that the transaction was entered into by the assessee with the said party not in the impugned year but in earlier year i.e in A.Y. 2014-15 ,the addition in any case could not have been made in the impugned year but only in the year in which the liability arose i.e. A.Y. 2014-15. Therefore the addition on account of outstanding liability pertaining to Prakash Gold is directed to be deleted. As for the liability on account of M/s. Aarti Jewelers, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the said liability was discharged in the succeeding years through banking channels. Copy of the ledger account of the parties was also placed before us. In view of the same therefore there is no question of holding the said party to be ingenuine and the addition made on this count is directed to be deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed. Issues:- Appeal against order passed by CIT(A) for AY 2016-17- Challenge to addition of Rs. 25,03,321 as bogus purchases from Aarti Jewelers and Prakash Gold- Allegations of illegality, lack of natural justice, and excessive additionAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2016-17. The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 25,03,321 as bogus purchases from Aarti Jewelers and Prakash Gold. The grounds raised included challenges regarding legality, natural justice, and excessive addition.2. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 25,03,321 as bogus purchases from the mentioned parties. The appellant argued that they were prevented from complying with hearing notices and should have been given an opportunity to produce additional evidence. The CIT(A) was criticized for not appreciating this aspect.3. The AO considered the outstanding balances of Aarti Jewelers and Prakash Gold as bogus entries, leading to the addition in the appellant's income. The AO noted that the liabilities were unverifiable due to non-submission of replies. The balances were treated as not genuine, and penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income.4. The AO found that the liability of Prakash Gold was carried forward from AY 2014-15, with no transactions in the subsequent years. The liability of Aarti Jewelers was linked to gold purchases during the impugned year. However, the appellant argued that the liability to Aarti Jewelers was discharged in the following years through banking channels.5. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition related to the outstanding liability of Prakash Gold, as the transaction occurred in AY 2014-15, not the impugned year. The addition concerning Aarti Jewelers was also deleted as the liability was discharged through banking channels, indicating its genuineness.6. Ultimately, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 25,03,321 was deleted based on the explanations provided regarding the discharge of liabilities. The Tribunal pronounced the order in favor of the Assessee on 29-04-2022.