| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | Amarjit Singh (JM), R. C. Sharma (AM) |
| SECTION(S): | 143(3), 69 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Bogus purchases, Bogus Sales |
| COUNSEL: | Bharat Kumar, Vimal Punmiya |
| DATE: | August 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 4, 2017 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2009-10 to 2011-12 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Bogus Purchases: If the AO has not disputed the genuineness of sales and the quantitative details and the day to day stock register maintained by the assessee, a trader, he cannot make an addition in respect of peak balance of the bogus purchases. He can only determine the element of profit embedded in the bogus purchases. On facts, the addition is restricted to 2% of the bogus purchase | |
We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by learned AR and DR during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix of the case. From the record, we found that AO has made addition in respect of purchases found to be bogus as per the information from sales tax department. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) recorded a finding to the fact that AO has not disputed the quantitative details and also day to day stock register maintained by the assessee. Assessee company being a trader of goods, AO not having doubted the genuineness of sales, could not have gone ahead and made addition in respect of peak balance on such purchases. Accordingly, CIT(A) concluded that issue boil down to find out the element of profit embedded in bogus purchases which the assessee would have made. When the corresponding sales have not been doubted and the quantitative details of purchases and sales vis-a-vis stock was available, we deem it appropriate considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% of such bogus purchase. Accordingly, the order of both the lower authorities are modified and AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% on such purchases.
Leave a Reply