Bogus purchase allegation for business expansion-retracted third-party statement vs invoices, challans and bank payments; addition deleted

Addition for alleged bogus purchases was examined on whether the assessee proved genuineness of purchases and whether the AO could rely on a third-party statement subsequently retracted. The Tribunal held that a retracted statement, without corroboration, has no evidentiary value, and the assessee discharged its onus through contemporaneous documents including tax invoices, transport challans, banking payments, supplier affidavits, VAT details, and consumption records; the expansion was also supported by regulatory approval. Further, the impugned amount was not claimed as a revenue deduction in the return or profit and loss account, undermining the basis for disallowance. The addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether purchases treated as "bogus" could be added/disallowed where the assessee produced documentary evidence of purchase, delivery and bank payments, and the construction activity using such material was accepted and capitalised in the books.

2. Whether an addition based mainly on a third-party survey statement alleging issuance of bogus bills could be sustained when that statement was later retracted and the Assessing Officer did not disprove the assessee's purchase evidence.

3. Whether any disallowance/addition was justified when the impugned purchase amounts were not claimed as revenue expenditure in the profit and loss account/return, but were capitalised as part of construction cost.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Sustainability of "bogus purchase" addition despite evidence and capitalisation

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the assessee constructed a third cold storage chamber (with governmental approval) and procured construction materials from various suppliers, including the impugned purchases. The material purchases and related costs were capitalised in the books as part of the construction cost. In support of genuineness, the assessee produced tax invoices, road challans, proof of delivery/consumption details for the chamber, VAT particulars of suppliers, and proof of payments through banking channels. The Court recorded that the construction and utilisation of materials stood proved and was accepted.

Conclusions: The assessee discharged its onus to substantiate the purchases; in absence of rebuttal of the documentary trail and considering that the purchases were part of capitalised construction activity, the addition/disallowance on the footing of "bogus purchases" was not sustainable and was deleted.

Issue 2: Evidentiary value of third-party survey statement and failure to disprove assessee's documents

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court considered the reopening and addition as founded on investigation inputs and a survey statement recorded under the Act, and evaluated the evidentiary basis relied upon by the Assessing Officer.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Assessing Officer's conclusion primarily relied upon a survey statement alleging accommodation/bogus billing, but the statement was later retracted. The Court held that, in such circumstances, the statement had no evidentiary value in law for sustaining the addition, particularly when the assessee's contemporaneous documents (invoices, challans, bank payments and other supporting records) were on record and were not disproved by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusions: Reliance on a retracted third-party statement, without dislodging the assessee's documentary evidence establishing purchases and payments, could not justify the "bogus purchase" addition; the addition was deleted.

Issue 3: Effect of the assessee not claiming the impugned amounts as revenue expenditure

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the assessee's contention, supported by audited financial statements, that the impugned sums were not claimed as deductible revenue expenditure in the profit and loss account/return; rather, they were capitalised as part of the construction of the third chamber. The Court treated this as a material factor undermining the basis for making a disallowance/addition as if a revenue deduction had been claimed.

Conclusions: Since no deduction of the impugned amounts was claimed in computing income and the expenditure stood capitalised, the addition confirmed by the first appellate authority lacked justification and was deleted; the appeal was allowed.

---