Babulal Hajarimalji Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Undisputedly the entire addition in this case has been made by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of guess work and estimation on the basis of some alleged information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra and from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that “the assessee has taken bogus purchase bills without having taken any delivery of the goods, without applying their mind. It is also not in dispute that the AO has also not examined the books of accounts of the assessee nor has reached a definite conclusion that the bills for purchasing the goods relied upon by the assessee are bogus but simply made the addition on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.) and from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra. It is also not in dispute that in the earlier years the Ld. CIT(A)/Revenue has itself estimated the profit element on such bogus purchases @ 6.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the A.R. for the assessee contended that during the earlier years the Revenue has itself determined the profit element in bogus purchases @ 6.5% and brought on record order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10.
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Pr. CIT vs. JK Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1850 of 2017 order dated 28 October, 2021 upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that in such circumstances gross profit should be in the range of 5% to 12.5% as reasonable estimation of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases.
ITAT held that in the light of the gross profit earned by the assessee in the earlier years on the basis of which profit element was fixed at 6.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, AO to charge the assessee at the gross profit rate @ 6.5% on bogus purchases of Rs.3,70,79,423/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The appellant, M/s. Babulal Hajarimalji Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2011-12 on the grounds inter-alia that :-
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in completing the reassessment proceedings without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.)
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in completing the reassessment proceedings without following the orders passed in the Appellant’s own case in the preceding Assessment Years thereby violating the Principle of Consistency.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 46,34,928/- being 5% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 3,70,79,423/- merely on surmises and conjectures.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee is an individual running a proprietary concern in the name of M/s. Mayur Steel Industries being into the business of trading in ferrous and non ferrous metals. During the year under assessment on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department and Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) [DGIT (Inv.)] that “some businessmen have indulged in acceptance of bogus purchase bills from bogus hawala bill providers and the assessee is one such beneficiaries of bogus purchase bills”, assessment was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act the assessee opted to treat the return already filed as response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) along with questionnaires were issued. As per information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai the assessee has accepted entries in respect of bogus purchases from 7 entities as under:
