2022 (7) TMI 1091 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal's decision in Income Tax Appeal, stresses genuine material purchases for work completion.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -25, Mumbai Versus Ram Builders,

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in an Income Tax Appeal case, emphasizing the necessity of material purchases for completing assigned works. ... Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - ITAT upheld the addition estimated based upon estimated profit at the rate of 12.5% on the total purchases in question - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the view expressed by the Tribunal in upholding the order passed by the learned CIT(A), cannot be said to be in any manner perverse or legally untenable, inasmuch as, if the entire amount were to be held as non-genuine purchases, then it would not be possible to justify as to how the works allotted to the assessee for execution by the semi Government Agencies could be completed. Therefore the argument that the entire amount ought to have been added to the income of the assessee is untenable, especially when the learned CIT(A) in its order as upheld by the Tribunal in the order impugned held that the purchases per se were not in dispute but the parties from whom the purchases are shown to have been made are disputed. The order passed by the Tribunal is legally valid warranting no interference. Issues:- Appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.- Deletion of addition on account of non-genuine purchases.- Dispute regarding purchases made by the assessee.- Validity of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main issue revolved around the deletion of an addition to the tune of Rs.4,15,22,944/- out of Rs.4,74,54,793/- added by the Assessing Officer on account of non-genuine purchases. The appellant questioned the justification of upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting a significant portion of the addition. The case involved the respondent, who was engaged in civil works like road construction under government bodies. The Assessing Officer raised concerns about purchases amounting to Rs.4,74,54,793/-, which were deemed bogus. The appellant failed to produce the suppliers for verification, leading to the addition of the entire amount to the taxable income.Upon appeal, the CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, considering the necessity of material purchases for completing the assigned works. The CIT(A) highlighted the importance of contract receipts and material consumption reports in justifying the purchases. The CIT(A) restricted the addition by estimating a profit of 12.5% on the total purchases, providing relief to the assessee. The Tribunal later dismissed the appeal and cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.The appellant contended that the failure to prove the genuineness of purchases rendered the Tribunal's decision untenable. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the consumption reports and completion certificates submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal justified the addition of Rs.59,31,849/- as estimated profit on the purchases. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that disputing the entire amount of purchases as non-genuine would hinder the completion of works assigned to the assessee. The Court found no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's valid order, ultimately dismissing the Income Tax Appeal.