2025 (4) TMI 335 - HC - Income Tax

Gujarat HC dismisses tax appeals on bogus purchases from Bhanwarlal Jain Group, upholds ITAT's 6% addition over CIT(A)'s 5% restriction.

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus Keshri Export

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus Keshri Export - 2025:GUJHC:18980 - DB 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) from 100% to 6% of the alleged bogus purchases.2. Whether the ITAT erred in not considering precedents where 100% of purchases from bogus parties were added to the assessee's income.3. Whether the ITAT's decision to restrict the addition to 6% was correct in light of judgments from other High Courts on similar issues.4. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification of ITAT's Restriction to 6%Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The assessment of bogus purchases involves determining the genuineness of transactions. The AO initially added 100% of the purchases as income, suspecting them to be accommodation entries. The ITAT restricted this to 6% based on precedents like the decision in the case of Pankaj K. Choudhary and Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd., where similar additions were reduced.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Court noted the ITAT's reliance on precedents where similar reductions were upheld. The ITAT considered the assessee's submission of bills, vouchers, stock registers, and bank statements as part of its reasoning to restrict the addition.Key Evidence and Findings:The ITAT examined the evidence provided by the assessee, including transaction documentation, which was deemed sufficient to support a reduction in the addition percentage.Application of Law to Facts:The ITAT applied the precedent from the case of Pankaj K. Choudhary, noting no significant change in facts or law, and thus upheld the 6% addition.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Revenue argued for sustaining the 100% addition, citing the assessee's engagement in accommodation entries. The assessee contended for deletion of the addition, presenting documentation to support genuine transactions. The ITAT balanced these arguments, ultimately siding with the precedent of a reduced addition.Conclusions:The Court found the ITAT's restriction to 6% justified, given the precedents and evidence presented.Issue 2: Consideration of Precedents for 100% AdditionRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The Revenue cited cases like N.K. Industries Ltd., where 100% of purchases from bogus parties were added to income. These precedents were argued to support a full addition.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Court noted that the ITAT had considered relevant precedents but found the facts in the current case aligned more closely with those supporting a reduced addition.Conclusions:The Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no substantial question of law warranting a full addition.Issue 3: Consideration of Judgments from Other High CourtsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The Revenue referenced judgments from other High Courts, like the Calcutta High Court's decision in Premlata Tekriwal, supporting full additions for bogus purchases.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Court found that while other High Court judgments were considered, the ITAT's decision was consistent with prevailing precedents within its jurisdiction.Conclusions:The Court concluded that the ITAT's approach was justified, given the consistency with local precedents.Issue 4: Deletion of Addition by ITATRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The Revenue challenged the ITAT's deletion of the addition, citing the Mayank Diamonds Pvt Ltd. case where a 5% addition was directed.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Court noted that the ITAT did not entirely delete the addition but rather reduced it, aligning with the precedent of a 6% addition.Conclusions:The Court found no error in the ITAT's decision to restrict rather than delete the addition entirely.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the ITAT's decision to restrict the addition to 6% was consistent with precedents and supported by the evidence presented. The following principles were established:- The ITAT's reliance on precedents like Pankaj K. Choudhary and Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. was appropriate given the similarity in facts.- The Court confirmed that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's decision, as it was consistent with prior judgments in similar cases.- The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the ITAT's findings and conclusions required no interference.