2022 (7) TMI 630 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns tax assessment, directs 10% profit rate on disputed purchases.

Shri Abbasbhai Fidahusein Bhartoo Versus Asst. CIT, Circle- 20 (1), Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal in a tax case for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal found that the addition of alleged bogus purchases ... Estimation of income - bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Though the purchases found to be bogus by the Revenue Authorities but sales by the assessee have been accepted as genuine as against these bogus purchases, we are of the considered view that when sales have been accepted being genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non genuine to make addition of the entire bogus purchases amount. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of JK Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. (2021 (10) TMI 1323 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that in such circumstances gross profit should be in the range of 5% to 12.5% as reasonable estimation of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases. Thus in the light of the gross profit in the iron and steel business gross profit @ 10%, which is agreed by both the parties to the appeal, is ordered to be added on the bogus purchases - AO is directed to charge the assessee at the gross profit of 10% on the bogus purchases. Issues:1. Natural justice - Opportunity to be heard.2. Addition of alleged bogus purchases under section 69C of the Income Tax Act.3. Supporting documentary evidence for purchases.4. Cross-examination of Sales Tax Department witnesses.5. Liability to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act.Issue 1: Natural Justice - Opportunity to be heardThe appellant challenged the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for not providing an appropriate opportunity of being heard, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The appellant sought to set aside the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2010-11.Issue 2: Addition of Alleged Bogus Purchases under Section 69CThe Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.7,91,289 as bogus purchases under section 69C of the Income Tax Act based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The appellant contended that the purchases were duly accounted for in the books and had supporting documentary evidence to prove their genuineness. The appellant challenged the addition, arguing that it was unjustified and should be deleted.Issue 3: Supporting Documentary Evidence for PurchasesThe appellant claimed to possess all supporting documentary evidence to prove the purchases made during the assessment year. The appellant argued that the addition made under section 69C of the Act was unwarranted as the purchases were genuine and accounted for in the books.Issue 4: Cross-Examination of Sales Tax Department WitnessesThe AO made the addition based on an investigation by the Sales Tax Department without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the department's witnesses. The appellant contended that the addition was unjustified as proper cross-examination was not allowed, and requested the deletion of the addition.Issue 5: Liability to Pay Interest under Sections 234B and 234CThe appellant denied any liability to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act and argued that such interest should not be levied. The appellant contested the imposition of interest and sought relief from the same.In the judgment, the Tribunal found that the entire assessment was based on information received from the Sales Tax Department, and the addition of alleged bogus purchases was made without substantial evidence. Relying on precedents and considering the gross profit in the iron and steel business, the Tribunal directed the AO to charge the appellant at a gross profit rate of 10% on the disputed purchases, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The decision highlighted the importance of evidence and reasonable estimation in determining the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases, emphasizing the need for a factual analysis in such cases.The judgment underscored the significance of fair proceedings, evidence-based assessments, and adherence to legal principles, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal based on the specific circumstances and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.