Bombay High Court
Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 1 vs Svd Resins And Plastics Pvt.Ltd on 7 August, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2024:BHC-OS:11927-DB 2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1662 OF 2018
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 ... Appellant
Versus
SVD Resins & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1664 OF 2018
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 ... Appellant
Versus
SVD Resins & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.
Mr. Tanzil Padvekar a/w Ms. Tejal Kharkar, for Respondent.
_______________________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
DATED: 7 August 2024
_______________________
Oral Judgment (Per: G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. These are two appeals filed by the revenue assailing a common order
dated 3 August 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for
short "the Tribunal") whereby the appeals filed by the revenue stand
partially allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee, were dismissed.
2. The revenue has raised the following questions of law :-
"(A) "Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the
case, and in view, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in restricting
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
the addition u/s.69C of the I.T. Act to the extent of 12.5%,
when the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of
purchase transaction in entirety?
(B) "Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case
and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT
v/s. Hariram Bhambhani (ITXA No.313 of 2013), when the
issue of addition u/s.69C as to the Bogus Sales was not involved
in the present case?"
3. The assessment years in question are assessment years 2009-2010 and
2010-2011. Briefly, the facts are the assessee is stated to be engaged in the
business of trading in resins and chemicals on wholesale basis. On
information received from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai the Assessing
Officer (AO) invoked Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short
"the Act") to reopen the completed assessment by issuing notice under
Section 148 dated 12 March 2013. In response thereto the assessee filed a
revised return on 20 March 2013, as also sought the reasons as recorded by
the A.O. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee had made purchases
amounting to Rs.1,34,25,500/- from six parties who were declared by the
Sales Tax Department as ingenuine dealers. It is not in dispute that during
the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed ledger accounts, conformation
of suppliers, purchase bills, delivery bank statements and other documentary
evidences to justify the genuineness of the purchases. The AO nonetheless
was of the opinion that the disputed purchases did not have nexus with the
corresponding sales. Accordingly, he made an addition of the said amount
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
under Section 69C of the Act on the ground of there being unexplained
payments qua the disputed purchases.
4. Such order passed by the A.O. was challenged by the assessee in
appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short,
"CIT(A)"] wherein the assessee contended that the AO has not rejected the
books of accounts by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3), hence, the
A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 69C. It was also
assessee's case that during the hearing in question as well as the preceding
two years, the assessee had declared gross profit for the assessment year
2007-2008 at 4.23% and for the assessment year 2008-2009 at 4.28%. It
was also contended that for the subsequent assessment year 2009-2010 a
gross profit of 4.74 % was declared in respect of the disputed purchase the
disclosed gross profit was 0.27% which was lower by 4.47% than the normal
gross profit margin of 4.74% in respect of other accepted genuine
transactions. It was also contended that if the disallowance is sustained,
there will be an abnormal increase in the gross profit at 17.81% which was
almost impossible in trading activity of chemicals and hence it was urged
before the CIT(A) that an alternate to estimate the total income at 5% on
the purchases needs to be accepted.
5. Considering the rival contentions, the CIT(A) estimated the profit at
12.5% on the purchases made by the assessee and more particularly,
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
considering the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs.
Smit P. Sheth1 as also in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.2. As the
assessee had shown gross profit at 4.74% in the assessment year in question,
the CIT(A) reduced the same from 12.5% and confirmed the addition to the
extent of 7.76%.
6. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the CIT(A) the revenue had
approached the tribunal, against the reduction of the said addition. The
assessee also filed a cross appeal against sustaining the addition at 7.76%.
7. The Tribunal considering the proceeding and the respective
contentions as urged on behalf of the revenue passed the impugned order in
which it was observed that the CIT(A) has rightly estimated the profit in
regard to the purchases at 12.5%, however, the Tribunal observed that
CIT(A) was not correct in reducing the gross profit already returned by the
assessee at 4.74% out of the 12%, for the reason that the gross profit
returned by the assessee related to the sales made by the assessee and did not
have link to the purchases for which assessee might have procured bills by
making savings in VAT etc. For such reason the tribunal partly allowed the
grounds as raised by the revenue and directed the AO to estimate the
income at 12.5% in each of the assessment year, on the purchases so made.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's challenge to the orders passed by the
1 356 ITR 451
2 355 ITR 290
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
CIT(A) while partly allowing the revenue's appeals and dismissing the
assessee's appeal.
8. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue has
limited submissions in assailing the impugned order. It is his primary
submission that the approach of the CIT(A) as also the part acceptance of
such approach by the tribunal in the impugned order needs interference of
this Court on the question of law as raised by the revenue. It is submitted
that entire purchases of Rs. 1,34,25,500/- were required to be discarded as
bogus purchases and the relevant amounts brought to tax by making
additions to the assessee's income, as rightly undertaken by the AO.
However, in making such submission, Mr. Suresh Kumar is not in a position
to dispute that the assessee had furnished all the relevant documents in so far
as the purchases are concerned namely the ledger accounts, confirmation of
suppliers, purchase bills, delivery statements and other documentary
evidence, despite which the A.O. on the basis of information received from
the Sales Tax Department had decided to make additions of the said
amounts on the ground that the purchases were presumed to be doubtful.
Mr. Suresh Kumar is also not in a position to point out anything from the
orders passed by the AO and/or from the order passed by the CIT(A) as to
whether the information which was received by the department qua the
transactions of the assessee was specific to the assessee's transactions as
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
questioned by the department. Mr. Suresh Kumar has fairly stated that
notices were issued to some of the suppliers. He also states that the suppliers
were not independently examined nor their evidence was recorded. Mr.
Suresh Kumar would accordingly submit that the Court needs to consider
the present appeal on the questions of law as raised.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has opposed these
appeals. He submits that all these are factual issues which are being raised by
the revenue and no question of law raises for consideration of the Court. He
has also placed reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court
in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Vs. Mohammad Haji
Adam & Company,3 to contend that in similar circumstances the Court had
not entertained the revenue's appeal and the same was dismissed, with
observations that no question of law had arisen for consideration of the
Court in similar facts. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
orders passed by the AO as also of the CIT(A) and the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to accept the contentions as
urged on behalf of the Revenue for the reasons we discuss hereunder.
11. We may observe that in the facts of the present case, the basic premise
on the part of the A.O. so as to form an opinion that the disputed purchases
3 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bombay)
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
were not having nexus with the corresponding sales, appears to be not
correct. It is seen that what was available with the department was merely
information received by it in pursuance of notices issued under Section
133(6) of the Act, as responded by some of the suppliers. However, an
unimpeachable situation that such suppliers could be labeled to be not
genuine qua the assessee or qua the transaction entered with the assessee by
such suppliers, was not available on the record of the assessment
proceedings. It is an admitted position that during the assessment
proceedings, the assessee filed all necessary documents in support of the
returns on which the ledger accounts were prepared, including confirmation
of the supplies by the suppliers, purchase bills, delivery bank statements etc.
to justify the genuineness of the purchases, however, such documents were
doubted by the AO on the basis of general information received by the AO
from the Sales Tax Department. In our opinion, to wholly reject these
documents merely on a general information received from the Sales Tax
Department, would not be a proper approach on the part of the AO, in the
absence of strong documentary evidence, including a statement of the Sales
Tax Department that qua the actual purchases as undertaken by the assessee
from such suppliers the transactions are bogus. Such information, if
available, was required to be supplied to the assessee to invite the response
on the same and thereafter take an appropriate decision. Unless such specific
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
information was available on record, it is difficult to accept that the AO was
correct in his approach to question such purchases, on such general
information as may be available from the Sales Tax Department, in making
the impugned additions. This for the reason that the same supplier could
have acted differently so as to generate bogus purchases qua some parties,
whereas this may not be the position qua the others. Thus, unless there is a
case to case verification, it would be difficult to paint all transactions of such
supplier to all the parties as bogus transactions.
12. In our opinion, a full addition could be made only on the basis of
proper proof of bogus purchases being available as the law would recognise
before the AO, of a nature which would unequivocally indicate that the
transactions were wholly bogus. In the absence of such proof, by no stretch
of imagination, a conclusion could be arrived, that the entire expenditure
claimed by the petitioner qua such transactions need to be added, to be
taxed in the hands of the assessee.
13. In a situation as this, the A.O. would be required to carefully consider
all such materials to come to a conclusion that the transactions are found to
be bogus. Such investigation or enquiry by the AO also cannot be an
enquiry which would be contrary to the assessments already undertaken by
the Sales Tax Authorities on the same transactions. This would create an
anomalous situation on the sale-purchase transactions. Hence, in our
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
opinion, wherever relevant any conclusion in regard to the transactions
being bogus, needs to be arrived only after the A.O. consults the Sales Tax
Department and a thorough enquiry in regard to such specific transactions
being bogus, is also the conclusion of the Sales Tax Department. In a given
case in the absence of a cohesive and coordinated approach of the A.O. with
the Sales Tax Authorities, it would be difficult to come to a concrete
conclusion in regard to such purchase / sales transactions being bogus merely
on the basis of general information so as to discard such expenditure and add
the same to the assessee's income.
14. Any half hearted approach on the part of the AO to make additions
on the issue of bogus purchases would not be conducive. It also cannot be
on the basis of superficial inquiry being conducted in a manner not known
to law in its attempt to weed out any evasion of tax on bogus transactions.
The bogus transactions are in the nature of a camouflage and/or a dishonest
attempt on the part of the assessee to avoid tax, resulting in addition to the
assessee's income. It is for such reason, the approach of the AO is required
to be well considered approach and in making such additions, he is expected
to adhere to the lawful norms and well settled principles. After such
scrutiny, the transactions are found to be bogus as the law would understand,
in that event, they are required to be discarded by making an appropriate
permissible addition.
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
15. Be that as it may, the orders passed by the CIT(A) in the present case
are partly interfered in favour of the revenue as discussed by us hereinabove.
In doing so the tribunal has observed that the CIT(A) was not correct in
reducing the gross profit already returned by the assessee at 4.74% from
12%, as the gross profit returned by the assessee in relation to the sales made
by the assessee, did not have bearing on the purchases of the assessee, qua
the bills procured by the assessee, by making savings in VAT etc. It is on
such premise the revenue's appeal has been allowed, by making a direction
to the AO to assess the income from such transaction at 12.5% in each of the
assessment years, on the purchases so made by the assessee.
16. The assessee has happily accepted such finding as this has benefited
the assessee, looked from any angle. However, in a given case if the Income
Tax Authorities are of the view that there are questionable and / or bogus
purchases, in that event, it is the solemn obligation and duty of the Income
Tax Authorities and more particularly of the A.O. to undertake all necessary
enquiry including to procure all the information on such transactions from
the other departments / authorities so as to ascertain the correct facts and
bring such transactions to tax. If such approach is not adopted, it may also
lead to assessee getting away with a bonanza of tax evasion and the real
income would remain to be taxed on account of a defective approach being
followed by the department.
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
2-ITXA-1662-2018.DOC
17. The decision in Mohammad Haji Adam & Company (supra) as relied
on behalf of assessee is also quite apposite in the context in hand. In this
decision, the Court observed that the findings which were arrived by the
CIT(A) as also by the tribunal would suggest that the department did not
dispute the assessee's sales, as there there was no discrepancy between the
purchases as shown by the the assessee and the sales declared. This was held
to be an acceptable position, in dismissing the revenue's appeal on the
ground that no substantial question of law had arisen for consideration of
the Court.
18. In the light of the above discussion, these appeals would not give rise
to a substantial question of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
(SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
7 August 2024
Kiran Kawre
