M/S RUDRAKSH CHEMICALS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1035/PUN/2023Status: HeardITAT Pune13 October 2023AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the difference was due to GST inclusion by suppliers and differences in opening balances, which were not fully substantiated before the lower authorities. The matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee showed purchases of Rs. 282.64 crore and sales of Rs. 286.19 crore. The AO noted a difference of Rs. 13,84,88,225/- between purchases shown by the assessee and those confirmed by suppliers. An addition of Rs. 6,92,441/- was made based on a 0.50% gross profit rate.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of alleged discrepancies in purchase confirmations from suppliers was justified. Whether the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to explain the differences.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 31-07-2023 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.6,92,441/-.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had shown purchases of Rs.282.64 crore and sales of Rs.286.19 crore.

The Assessing Officer (AO) called upon the assessee to furnish the details of the parties from whom the purchases were made. The M/s.Rudraksh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., assessee furnished such details. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s.133(6) to the suppliers requiring confirmation of the transaction with the assessee. Most of the suppliers responded to the same. The AO has drawn a chart at page 4 of the assessment order noting the amount of purchases shown by the assessee and amount of sales as confirmed by the suppliers with the difference, sum total of which comes to Rs.13,84,88,225/-. The AO held that the assessee did not include such purchases in the books of account and accordingly failed to offer income thereon. Applying the gross profit rate of 0.50%, being, the normal gross profit rate, he computed the addition of Rs.6,92,441/-, which came to be affirmed in the first appeal.

Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the basis of the addition is the difference in the amount of purchases as shown by the assessee and as confirmed by the sellers. The ld. AR submitted that actually no difference exists, for the reason that, in some of the cases, the suppliers included the amount of GST which was not so included by the assessee; whilst in others there were differences in the opening balances. He fairly admitted that such complete details could not be furnished before the authorities below. In view of the fact that the M/s.Rudraksh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., assessee has now come up with a chart claiming that no difference exists in the purchases for the year under consideration on the reason stated above, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for making the assessment afresh on this point after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. I order accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th October, 2023.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →