ITAT quashes s.263 revision; bogus purchase disallowance u/s37(1) not taxable as s.69C income u/s115BBE

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the PCIT's revisionary order u/s 263. The AO, in reassessment u/s 147, had already treated purchases from a specific supplier as bogus and disallowed them u/s 37(1). PCIT directed the AO to instead invoke s.69C and apply s.115BBE. ITAT held that s.69C applies only where there is unexplained expenditure or unsatisfactory explanation of its source. Since the AO had never doubted the source of funds but only the genuineness of purchases, s.69C was inapplicable. Consequently, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue, invalidating the s.263 revision.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned.

1.2 Whether the reassessment order disallowing alleged bogus purchases under section 37(1) could be held "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" under section 263 for not invoking sections 69C and 115BBE.

1.3 Whether, on the facts, disallowance of bogus purchases recorded in the regular books of account could be brought within the scope of "unexplained expenditure" under section 69C so as to attract the special rate of tax under section 115BBE.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Tribunal examined the explanation offered that the delay of 62 days occurred due to negligence of the accountant, who failed to inform the assessee about the passing of the impugned order, resulting in late filing of the appeal.

2.2 The Tribunal found that the reasons stated in the condonation petition were not false, that the delay was unintentional and inadvertent, and that no benefit accrued to the assessee by filing a delayed appeal.

2.3 It was held that the assessee should not suffer for the negligence of its accountant and that a reasonable cause for the delay had been demonstrated.

Conclusion

2.4 The delay of 62 days was condoned and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Issue 2: Validity of revision under section 263 based on non-application of sections 69C and 115BBE

Legal framework discussed

2.5 The Tribunal reproduced and considered section 69C, which applies where an assessee has incurred expenditure and offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure, or the explanation is not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer, in which case such amount may be deemed to be the income of the assessee and is not allowable as deduction under any head.

2.6 The Tribunal also reproduced and considered section 115BBE, which provides for a special rate of tax at 60% on income referred to, inter alia, in section 69C, where such income is included in the total income as returned or as determined by the Assessing Officer.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The reassessment was initiated on the allegation that purchases from a particular party were bogus, and the Assessing Officer, after examining material including statements of persons controlling various firms, disallowed the entire purchases under section 37(1) as bogus purchases.

2.8 The Principal Commissioner invoked section 263 on the premise that the Assessing Officer ought to have treated the disallowed purchases as "unexplained expenditure" under section 69C and taxed the amount at the higher rate under section 115BBE, and consequently treated the assessment order as "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue".

2.9 The Tribunal noted that the purchases in question were recorded in the regular books of account and that the allegation of the Assessing Officer was limited to the genuineness of the purchases, treating them as bogus, not to the source of the expenditure.

2.10 It was specifically observed that nowhere in the assessment order had the Assessing Officer raised any doubt about the source of the expenditure on purchases; the grievance was only that the purchases were not genuine, leading to disallowance under section 37(1).

2.11 The Tribunal held that section 69C applies where the source of expenditure remains unexplained or not satisfactorily explained, which is conceptually distinct from a case where expenditure is found to be non-genuine or bogus but its source is not in dispute.

2.12 In support, the Tribunal relied on decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches holding that disallowance of non-genuine expenditure does not fall within the ambit of section 69C and thus cannot be subjected to tax under section 115BBE by invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263.

2.13 On this reasoning, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's treatment of the amount as disallowance of bogus purchases under section 37(1) constituted a plausible view based on due enquiry, and failure to apply section 69C/115BBE in such circumstances did not render the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Conclusions

2.14 The Tribunal concluded that, on the facts, section 69C was not applicable to the disallowance of bogus purchases already recorded in the books and whose source was not in dispute.

2.15 Consequently, the assessment order could not be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because section 69C read with section 115BBE was not invoked.

2.16 The revisionary order passed under section 263 setting aside the reassessment and directing fresh proceedings was quashed.

2.17 All grounds of appeal challenging the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 on the above basis were allowed.

---