Assessee's appeal succeeds; bogus purchase addition deleted, disclosed bank payments negate unexplained expenditure u/s69C and s.37

The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made as bogus purchases under s.69C. It held that purchases from the two concerns were duly recorded in the assessee's books and payments were effected through normal banking channels from disclosed bank accounts, establishing explained sources. As the transactions and funding were fully disclosed, there was no unexplained expenditure warranting invocation of s.69C. The Tribunal further noted that the Revenue had not alleged that the purchases were non-genuine or not incurred for business so as to justify disallowance under s.37. The restriction of disallowance by CIT(A) was therefore set aside.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether an addition under section 69C could be sustained, and enhanced to 100% of the purchase value, in respect of purchases duly recorded in the books and paid through disclosed banking channels.

1.2 Consequence of deletion of the section 69C addition on the necessity to adjudicate other grounds, including validity of reopening and other merits.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Sustainability of addition/enhancement under section 69C on alleged bogus purchases

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The addition was made and enhanced by the appellate authority under section 69C of the Act on the footing that the entire amount of purchases from two concerns represented unexplained expenditure. The Court contrasted this with the possible applicability of section 37 in a case where purchases are found to be bogus and not incurred for the purposes of business.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Court found, as a matter of fact, that the entire purchases from the two concerns had been duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee company.

2.3 Payments for such purchases had been made through regular banking channels from disclosed bank accounts, and the sources for such payments were traceable to the assessee's books and available bank balances.

2.4 On this factual foundation, the Court held that once the purchase transactions are disclosed and the related payments are made out of explained and disclosed sources, no element of "unexplained expenditure" remains so as to attract section 69C.

2.5 It was also specifically noted that the Revenue's case had not been put on the footing that the purchases were bogus so as to warrant disallowance under section 37 on the ground that the expenditure was not incurred for the purposes of business.

2.6 The appellate authority's treatment of the entire purchase value as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, despite the transactions being recorded and funded from disclosed sources, was held to be legally unsustainable.

Conclusions

2.7 The addition made under section 69C, including the enhancement to 100% of the purchase value, was held to be unsustainable in law and was deleted in full.

Issue 2 - Effect of deletion of section 69C addition on other grounds (including reopening)

Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 Having concluded that the entire addition under section 69C could not be sustained, the Court considered whether it was necessary to examine the other arguments advanced by the assessee, including on the validity of reopening and on other merits.

2.9 The Court held that, in view of the complete deletion of the impugned addition under section 69C, adjudication of the remaining grounds and arguments was not required.

Conclusions

2.10 The other arguments on validity of reopening and on merits were left open and not adjudicated, and the appeal was allowed on the sole ground of deletion of the section 69C addition.

---