Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G Manjunatha
Date of hearing 13-11 -2017 Date of pronouncement 22-11-2017 O R D E R
Per G Manjunatha, AM :
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-10, Mumbai dated 29-08-2016 and it pertains to AY 2009-10.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 12-09-2009 declaring total income of Rs.3,02,860.
The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 13-12-2011 determining the total income at Rs.3,39,770. Subsequently the case has been reopened u/s 147, on the basis of information received from the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai / Sales- tax department regarding bogus purchases made from hawala dealers. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 19-03-2015 determining the total income at Rs.20,16,57,783 by making additions towards alleged bogus purchases from 8 parties as listed by the AO in his order at paragraph 5 for the reason that the parties were indulging in providing accommodation entries and the assessee failed to justify purchases with any evidence. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), for the detailed discussion in his order dated 29-08-2016, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) directed the AO to estimate net profit of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The relevant observations of the CIT(A) are extracted below:-
5.2. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the Id.AR. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the AO and the ld.AR. As seen from the facts of the case the AO has reopened the assessment based on the information received from Sales Tax Departiient through DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai with regard to non-payment of VAT by some of the sellers whose registration was cancelled later, having observed that those are the non-existant sellers and they have not made any sales except the bogus invoices issued in their name. When the Sales Tax Department has made enquiries some of the sellers, including the parties appearing in the books of the appellant company, have admitted before them that they have not made any sales but given the invoices for certain commission. However, the assessees have argued before the Income Tax Authorities that they have made the payments through Bank cheques to the sellers and received the material. Their argument was that unless the AO proves positively that the material was not delivered to the assessee and the payment made through the Bank channels have been bogus or the amounts paid in the names of the suppliers have come back to the purchaser-assessee, the AO cannot make any addition. Further, as the AO has not doubted the sales disclosed by the appellant he has to allow the purchases since there cannot be any sales without the purchase of the material. The only possibility is that the appellant might have inflated its purchases by taking into count the invoices in the names of the bogus suppliers. The presumption is that the material might have been purchased from grey market at a lower rate and made good the entries with bogus bills to reduce the profits. Under similar circumstances the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of Simit P Seth, 2013 (356 ITR 451) had an occasion to deliver its judgment by confirming the decision of the ITAT which has estimated the disallowance at 12.5% of the disputed bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice. The head-note of the decision is reproduced as under- Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of Profits [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee was engaged in business of trading in steel on wholesale basis - Assessing Officer having found that some of alleged suppliers of steel to assessee had not supplied steel to assessee but had only provided sale bills, held that purchases made from said parties were bogus - He, accordingly, added entire amount of purchases to gross profit of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) having found that assessee had indeed made purchases, though not from named parties but other parties from grey market, sustained addition to extent of 30 per cent of purchase cost as probable profit of assessee - Tribunal however, sustained addition to extent of 12.5 per cent - Whether since purchases were not bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to assessee's income - Held, yes - Whether hence, order of Tribunal needed no interference - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7 & 9] [In favour of assessee]". (emphasis supplied).
5.2.1. Based on the evidence on hand in the form of a report from DIT(lnv), Mumbai and as no notice under section 148 was AO has initiated independent enquiry by issue of notices u/s 133(6) but have come back unserved. During the course of appellate proceedings the ld.AR has filed the details like list of sundry creditors and sundry debtors, audited accounts of the appellant company, quantitative stock details showing item wise purchase and sale, VAT return, audit report for the purpose of sales tax which were taken on record. As the AO has made all-out efforts to serve the notices and as there was a report from the DIT (lnv) stating that all the seller parties as per the list supplied by them are bogus parties, including the parties appearing in the books of the appellant company, and there was no counter submission by the assessee, the AO has no other alternative but to conclude the assessment under section 144 r.w.s 147 by bringing to tax the entire reported bogus purchases to tax u/s 69 of the Act. The AO cannot be found fault on this count. Even though the AO could not prove substantively that the amounts given to the sellers in cheque form have come back to the appellant, the activities of accommodation entries in the trading community is not unheard of. Further, the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Department, another Government Agency, with regard to VAT violation cannot be lost sight of. Further, as some of the names of the so-called bogus sellers out of the list supplied by the Sales Tax Department are appearing in the books of the appellant company, the link of involvement of appellant company in getting bogus bills is established. Even though there are catena of cases decided by the jurisdictional ITAT which have decided the issue in favour of the assessee, they are not uniform in all the cases as they were decided as per the facts and circumstances of that particular case before them. I am of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the present case are more akin to the case decided by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Simit P Seth (supra.). Respectfully following this decision, I hereby direct the AO to work out 12.5% of the so-called bogus purchases, and add back the same to the taxable income in place of the addition made on the entire purchases from the reported bogus sellers. The ground is partly allowed.”
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee as well as the revenue
Tribunal. The appeal filed by the assessee has been disposed of by ITAT, Mumbai Bench ‘B’ in dated 31-08-2017 wherein the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld estimation of net profit at 12.5% made by the CIT(A). The relevant portion of the order of ITAT is extracted below:- “4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales with purchases from the parties during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has submitted the detail of corresponding sales in respect of the purchase from the said parties. As mentioned above the AO has never disputed or examined the aspect of sales receipts. Since the sales made by the assessee was not doubted or disputed by the AO and he has accepted the sales receipts of the assessee as it is, therefore, the AO cannot deny that purchases were not made by the assessee and the material was not used for its sales. What is under dispute is the purchases from the parties from whom bills have been taken and cheques have been issued to them. Purchases are not in dispute but the parties from whom purchase are shown to have been made are disputed and suspicious. The AO had made the addition as some of the suppliers were declared hawala dealers by the VAT Department. This may be a good reason for making further investigation but the AO did not make any further investigation and merely completed the assessment on suspicion. Once the assessee has brought on record the details of payments by account payee cheque, it was incumbent on the AO to have verified the payment details from the bank of the assessee and also from the bank of the suppliers to verify whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account. No such exercise has been done or findings recorded, There was no detailed investigation made by the AO himself. It is also found that the payments have been made by account payee cheque which are duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash back from the suppliers. Merely because the suppliers did not appear before the AO or some confirmation letters were not furnished, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. This view is supported by the decision of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises vs. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom). To this extent, we are of the view that if the assessee has fulfilled its onus of making the payment by cheque and has supplied the addresses of the sellers then it cannot be presumed that supplier were bogus simply because the sellers were not found at the given address. There is a considerable time gap between the period of purchase transaction and period of scrutiny proceedings. The AO has not brought any material on record to show that there is suppression of sales. It is basic rule of accountancy as well as of taxation laws that profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. Estimation of profit ranging from 12.5% to 15% has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 taxman 385 (Guj), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.”
At the time of hearing, both the counsels submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 against the order of the CIT(A) estimating net profit of 12.5% on total alleged purchases has been dismissed by the ITAT. The Ld.AR further submitted that the appeal filed by the revenue is also against the very same order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to estimate net profit of 12.5% on total alleged bogus purchases. Since the ITAT has already given its finding on the directions of the CIT(A) estimating net profit at 12.%, the appeal filed by the revenue may be dismissed.
The Ld.DR on the other hand, fairly accepted that the ITAT has upheld the findings of the CIT(A) in assessee’s appeal in ITA No.7151/Mum/2016.
Having heard both the sides, we find that the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “B” in has already considered the issue of estimation of net profit of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases. Since the ITAT has upheld the order of CIT(A), the finding given by the ITAT, in its order dated 31-08-2017 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal filed by the revenue. Therefore, for the same reasons, we direct the AO to estimate profit at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd November, 2017.