2024 (12) TMI 1375 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment under Section 147 valid for bogus purchases but addition limited to profit margin difference

Gehna Jewellers Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 initiated based on information from Principal Director of Income Tax ... Validity of the re-assessment proceedings - addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases - reassessment initiated on the basis of information received from the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) - HELD THAT:- Information received from the investigation wing formed sufficient tangible material for initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. As per the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income had escaped assessment since the Appellant had booked bogus purchases and thereby, failed to made full and true disclosure during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we reject the challenge to the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Since the re-assessment proceedings were validly initiated no fault could be found in the action of the AO including in the ambit of re-assessment proceedings, the escapement of income on account of the alleged bogus purchases. Estimation of income - Addition of entire purchase price in the hands of the Appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, by following the judgment of Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. [2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] AO is directed to restrict the addition to the difference, if any, between (a) the gross profits margin offered to tax in relation to genuine purchases and (b) the gross profits margin offered to tax in relation to alleged bogus purchases. Decided partly in favour of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:The validity of the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The legitimacy of the addition of INR 25,66,533/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Re-assessment ProceedingsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The re-assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for re-assessment if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the information received from the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) regarding accommodation entries for bogus purchases constituted sufficient tangible material to initiate re-assessment proceedings.Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessing Officer verified records and found purchases of INR 11,33,022/- from M/s Rajan Gems, which were deemed bogus.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings was valid as the information provided a reasonable basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's challenge to the validity of the re-assessment proceedings was rejected as the Tribunal found the proceedings were based on credible information.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the re-assessment proceedings were validly initiated and upheld the inclusion of alleged bogus purchases in the re-assessment.Issue 2: Legitimacy of the Addition of INR 25,66,533/-Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The addition was made under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT-17 vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had provided relevant details of stock and purchases, and the previous Tribunal order had set aside the revision under Section 263, which had attained finality.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellant had furnished month-wise quantitative details of stock, which were accepted in prior proceedings.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that only the difference in gross profit margins between genuine and alleged bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire purchase amount.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's contention against the full addition of the purchase amount, directing a recalculation based on profit margins.Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the difference in gross profit margins, thereby partly allowing the appeal.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The addition of entire purchase price in the hands of the Appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court... the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the addition to the difference, if any, between (a) the gross profits margin offered to tax in relation to genuine purchases and (b) the gross profits margin offered to tax in relation to alleged bogus purchases.'Core Principles Established: The initiation of re-assessment proceedings requires tangible material indicating income escapement. Additions for bogus purchases should be limited to discrepancies in profit margins, not the entire purchase amount.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal upheld the validity of the re-assessment proceedings but modified the addition of INR 25,66,533/- to reflect only the difference in profit margins, thus partly allowing the appeal.