Reopening under section 147 upheld, but disallowance on alleged bogus purchases limited to 12.5% profit element

ITAT Mumbai upheld the reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information from DGIT(Inv.) and the Sales Tax Department indicating bogus purchases from a named concern, holding that the AO had valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment. However, as payments were made by account payee cheques, supporting documents were furnished, and sales were accepted by the Revenue, the entire purchases could not be disallowed. Relying on HC precedents, the Tribunal held only the profit element was taxable and directed the AO to restrict disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, partly allowing the assessee's appeal.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether reopening of assessment under section 147/148 is valid where reopening is based on information received from investigative/sales tax authorities indicating bogus purchases.

2. Whether purchases disallowed as bogus in entirety where assessee produced invoices and bank payments but failed to produce suppliers for verification.

3. If entire purchases cannot be disallowed, what is the appropriate measure of addition - full value of purchases or only the profit element embedded in such purchases?

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of reopening under section 147/148

Legal framework: Reopening of assessment is permissible if the Assessing Officer has a prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, supported by information available to the AO, and notice under section 148 properly issued.

Precedent Treatment: The Court accepted reopening where information from investigative authorities and the Sales Tax Department pointed to bogus purchases - treating such intelligence as sufficient to form prima facie belief.

Interpretation and reasoning: The AO received specific information from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Inv.) and the Sales Tax Department indicating purchases from a particular supplier were bogus. On that basis the AO issued notice under section 148 and completed reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147. The Tribunal found that the existence of this information furnished a prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, rendering the reopening valid.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reopening is valid where reassessment is founded on concrete information from investigative/sales tax authorities that gives the AO a prima facie reason to believe income escaped assessment.

Conclusion: Reopening under section 147/148 upheld as valid on the facts where the AO acted upon information from relevant authorities indicating bogus purchases.

Issue 2 - Disallowance of entire purchases treated as bogus where invoices and bank payments were produced but suppliers were not produced for verification

Legal framework: When an assessee claims expenditure/purchases, the AO may verify genuineness including production of suppliers; however, evidentiary standard includes documentary proof (invoices, bank payments) and consistency with recorded sales.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on higher court rulings that where sales recorded by the assessee are accepted and documentary evidence of purchases and payment exists, the entire purchases cannot be automatically disallowed merely because suppliers were not produced.

Interpretation and reasoning: The AO and the appellate authority noted discrepancies in invoices, delivery challans and transport bills and that suppliers were not produced. Nevertheless, the Tribunal observed (i) assessee made payments through account payee cheques, and (ii) sales recorded by the assessee corresponding to such purchases were not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal reasoned that accepted sales preclude treating entire purchases as non-existent, as sales could not arise without corresponding purchases; at most, the purchases might reflect gray-market procurement and inflated bills but not complete non-occurrence.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where documentary evidence of purchases and payment exists and corresponding sales are accepted, the AO cannot treat entire purchases as bogus solely because suppliers are not produced; a limited addition based on profit element is appropriate. Obiter - Observations about specific invoice discrepancies serve evidential context but do not mandate full disallowance.

Conclusion: Entire purchases cannot be disallowed as non-genuine in circumstances where invoices and bank payments exist and sales are accepted; the disallowance must be limited.

Issue 3 - Quantum of addition when purchases are found to be non-genuine or involving bogus/gray-market bills

Legal framework: Where certain purchases are held as non-genuine or covered by bogus bills, the permissible approach is to estimate and tax the profit element embedded in such purchases rather than adding the full purchase value, unless evidence shows complete fabrication of both purchase and sale.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed judicial authority holding that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases is taxable where finished goods sold are accepted as genuine; full disallowance is not proper when sales are genuine or recorded.

Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the principle that sales accepted by the Revenue imply corresponding material movement, the Tribunal directed a proportional approach: restrict addition to the profit margin inherent in the impugned purchases. On the facts, the Tribunal quantified that margin at 12.5% of the purchases treated as non-genuine and directed the Assessing Officer to make disallowance limited to that percentage, rather than the full purchase amount.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - When purchases are held non-genuine but corresponding sales are accepted, the correct measure of addition is the profit element embedded in such purchases (here fixed at 12.5% by the Tribunal on the facts), not the entire purchase value. Obiter - The specific percentage (12.5%) is an evidential estimate applied to these facts and serves as a factual determination rather than a universal rule.

Conclusion: Disallowance restricted to estimate of profit element (12.5% in this case) of purchases treated as non-genuine; appeal partly allowed accordingly.

Cross-references

See Issue 2 and Issue 3 link: Acceptance of sales (Issue 2) is pivotal to limiting addition to profit element (Issue 3); absence of supplier production does not automatically negate documentary evidence of payments and sales.

---