2025 (8) TMI 680 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening upheld under IT Act for bogus purchases; 100% disallowance of purchases and sundry creditors confirmed

CICC Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward – 12 (1) (4), Mumbai

CICC Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward – 12 (1) (4), Mumbai - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDValidity of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment.Legitimacy of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases based on information from Sales Tax Department without rejecting books of account.Whether addition on account of bogus purchases should be restricted to gross profit margin as per judicial precedents.Validity of addition as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of reopening assessment by issuance of notice under section 148- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 148 allows reopening of assessment if the Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The threshold for reopening is information suggesting escapement of income, not conclusive proof.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The reopening was based on information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding fictitious entities issuing bogus bills. The Court noted that mere information indicating escapement is sufficient to validate reopening.- Key evidence and findings: Information from Sales Tax Department and DGIT Investigation identifying certain entities as bogus entry providers.- Application of law to facts: The AO had sufficient reason to believe income escaped assessment, justifying issuance of notice under section 148.- Treatment of competing arguments: No submissions or evidence were presented by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening.- Conclusions: The reopening of assessment was valid and lawful.Issue 2: Addition on account of alleged bogus purchases without rejecting books of account- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Additions can be made if purchases are found to be bogus or unsupported by evidence. Rejection of books of account is not mandatory if sufficient evidence exists to disbelieve transactions.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO disallowed 100% of purchases from identified bogus entities based on credible information and failure of the assessee to substantiate purchases. The CIT(A) upheld this addition due to absence of any evidence from the assessee.- Key evidence and findings: Information from Sales Tax Department identifying bogus suppliers; failure of assessee to produce bills, delivery proofs, or other substantiation despite notices.- Application of law to facts: The AO's disallowance was justified given the lack of evidence and credible information of bogus transactions.- Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee did not file any submissions or evidence at any stage to rebut the claim of bogus purchases.- Conclusions: Addition on account of bogus purchases was rightly confirmed without rejecting books of account.Issue 3: Restriction of addition to gross profit margin on bogus purchases- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Judicial precedents often hold that additions for bogus purchases should be restricted to gross profit margin rather than full purchase amount, to avoid double taxation.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the assessee's contention but found no merit due to absence of any evidence or submissions. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed 100% of purchases, consistent with the information received and lack of proof.- Key evidence and findings: No evidence or submissions provided by the assessee to justify restriction to gross profit margin.- Application of law to facts: Without evidence, the Court declined to apply the principle of restricting addition to gross profit margin.- Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's ground on this issue was unsupported and unsubstantiated.- Conclusions: No restriction to gross profit margin was warranted in the facts of the case; full addition was upheld.Issue 4: Addition as unexplained cash credit under section 68- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under section 68, unexplained cash credits can be added to income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such credits.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO added Rs. 21,74,030/- as unexplained cash credit due to failure of the assessee to produce any supporting evidence for sundry creditors. CIT(A) upheld this addition.- Key evidence and findings: Absence of any documentary evidence or explanation from the assessee regarding sundry creditors.- Application of law to facts: The addition was justified as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving genuineness of sundry creditors.- Treatment of competing arguments: No submissions or evidence were presented by the assessee to counter the addition.- Conclusions: Addition under section 68 was valid and rightly confirmed.Additional ObservationsThe assessee was habitual in non-compliance and failure to file submissions or evidence at all stages including before AO, CIT(A), and Appellate Tribunal.The assessment was completed under section 144 due to non-filing of returns and non-cooperation.The Court relied exclusively on material on record and submissions of the revenue representative due to absence of any participation by the assessee.The appeal was dismissed on merits and validity of reopening, with no costs awarded.