TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Rules Only Profit Element Added for Bogus Purchases; Upholds 4% Rate, Rejects Revenue's 12.5% Appeal</h1> The Tribunal concluded that in cases of alleged bogus purchases, only the profit element should be added to the assessee's income, aligning with ... Estimation of income - bogus purchases - CIT(A) restricted addition of the gross profit @4% as against 12.5% determined by AO - HELD THAT:- As in V. Jiwani [2022 (10) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be treated as the income of the assessee. CIT(A) accordingly adopted a gross profit rate of 4%, respectfully following the rulings of Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. [2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. These decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court are binding upon us. We respectfully follow the direction supra, no infirmity in the impugned appellate order. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue in this case revolves around the treatment of alleged bogus purchases by the assessee and the appropriate rate of gross profit to be applied to such purchases. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the entire amount of the alleged bogus purchases should be disallowed or if only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe relevant legal framework involves the application of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly sections related to the assessment of income and the treatment of non-genuine purchases. Precedents from various judicial pronouncements were considered, including the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the cases of PCIT Vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. and PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani. These cases established that in instances where sales are not disputed, the addition on account of bogus purchases should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases rather than the entire purchase amount.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal interpreted the legal framework and precedents to mean that only the profit element in the alleged bogus purchases should be treated as the income of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., where it was held that when sales are not disputed, the addition should be restricted to the difference between the gross profit declared on genuine purchases and non-genuine purchases.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal noted that the Maharashtra Sales-tax Department provided information indicating that the assessee engaged in bogus purchases, with false bills issued without the delivery of goods. The Assessing Officer (AO) added back a gross profit of 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases. However, the CIT(A) restricted this addition to a gross profit of 4%, considering judicial pronouncements and the fact that sales were declared by the assessee.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the law by considering the precedents set by the Bombay High Court, which emphasized that only the profit element should be added back to the income. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a 4% gross profit rate, as it aligned with the legal principles established in the relevant cases.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal evaluated arguments from both the revenue and the assessee. The revenue argued for a 12.5% gross profit rate, while the assessee cited precedents that supported a lower rate. The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments more compelling, given the binding nature of the Bombay High Court's decisions.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) correctly applied a gross profit rate of 4% to the alleged bogus purchases, in line with the legal precedents. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the appellate order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal ReasoningThe Tribunal reiterated the CIT(A)'s reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., which stated: 'in case where the sales are not disputed then the addition on account of bogus purchases is to be restricted to the difference between the Gross Profit declared in the case of genuine purchases and non-genuine purchase.'Core Principles EstablishedThe core principle established is that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be treated as the income of the assessee, particularly when sales are not disputed.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal determined that the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a 4% gross profit rate was appropriate and in accordance with binding judicial precedents. Consequently, both appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
