Protective addition against assessee deleted after substantive addition against IPCA removed in previous case

The ITAT Mumbai held that a protective addition made against the assessee based on alleged over-invoicing by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd was unjustified. The assessee had initially admitted during search proceedings u/s 132(4) that cash found belonged to IPCA and was generated from over-invoicing, but later retracted this statement. The tribunal ruled that since the substantive addition against IPCA was already deleted in a previous case, the protective addition had no basis. The tribunal emphasized that retracted statements u/s 132(4) require corroborative evidence and proper investigation by the AO, which was lacking here. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of protective addition made on account of over-invoicing of purchases.
2. Validity of statements made u/s 132(4) and their subsequent retraction.
3. Legitimacy of the AO's benchmarking exercise for price comparison.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Protective Addition on Account of Over-Invoicing of Purchases
The sole grievance of the Revenue in all these appeals relates to the Ld. CIT(A)'s action of deleting the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of over-invoicing of purchases by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. The AO had observed that the assessee was found in possession of cash during a search conducted u/s 132 of the Act and admitted that the amount belonged to M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd and was generated out of over-invoicing. However, the assessee later retracted this statement, claiming the cash represented his own unaccounted income, which was accepted and assessed by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the protective addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Validity of Statements Made u/s 132(4) and Subsequent Retraction
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act, which allows statements made during search to be used as evidence. However, it emphasized that such statements must be voluntary and without coercion. The burden to prove otherwise lies on the maker of the statement. The Tribunal noted that an admission is an important piece of evidence but not conclusive, and the assessee can show it to be incorrect. The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct proper investigations to corroborate the initial statements and relied solely on them for making additions.

Issue 3: Legitimacy of AO's Benchmarking Exercise for Price Comparison
The Tribunal found that the AO's inference of over-invoicing from purchases made from various vendors was based on flawed assumptions and selective data. The AO failed to consider functional, economic, and risk differences among vendors and did not bring tangible material or evidence to prove that the assessee had paid excess prices and received back monies from suppliers. The Tribunal held that the AO's comparison exercise lacked legal backing and was unreliable. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's ultimate addition was based on employee statements regarding transactions with M/s Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd, which did not involve the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the substantive addition was unjustified, and thus, the protective addition had no basis. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made on account of over-invoicing in purchases across all assessment years. Consequently, all appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 08/04/2024.

---