BOMBAY HIGH COURT
PCIT VS M/S MOHOMMAD
HAJI ADAM & CO.
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1004 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
WITH
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1013 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
WITH
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
WITH
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
WITH
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
WITH
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
WITH
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1204 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
WITH
INCOME
TAX APPEAL NO. 1012 OF 2016
The
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 …Appellant
vs
M/s
Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. …Respondent.
All these appeals arise
out of common Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The facts in all
these appeals being same, we make it from ITXA No. 1004 of 2016. The revenue –
appellant has raised following questions for our consideration “(a) Whether on
the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was
justified in not confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on
account of bogus purchases shown to have been made through hawala transactions
from certain parties who were only providing accommodation sale bills?
(b) Whether on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, where evidently no
purchases were made from these parties who were issuing only bogus
accommodation bills and this finding has been accepted by the CIT(A) and the ITAT,
the ITAT, without any evidence, was justified in presuming that there must have
been purchases and thereupon giving huge relief to the assessee ?
(c) Whether on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Hon’ble
ITAT is perverse as no reasonable person acting judicially and properly
instructed in the relevant law could arrive at such a finding on the evidence
on record?”
2 The issues relate to
the Assessment Year ( “A.Y.” for short) concerning the respondent - assessee who
is a trader of fabrics. During the survey operations in case of the entities
from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases, the department
collected information suggesting that such purchases were not genuine. The
Assessing Officer (“A.O.” for short) noticed that the assessee had shown
purchases of fabrics worth Rs.29.41 Lacs (rounded off) from three group
concerns, namely, M/s Manoj Mills, M/s Astha Silk Industries and M/s Shri Ram
Sales & Synthetics. On the basis of the statement recorded during such
survey operations, the A.O. concluded that the selling parties were engaged
only in supplying the bogus bills, that the goods in question were never
supplied to the assessee, and therefore, the purchases were bogus. He,
therefore, added the entire sum in the hands of the assessee as its additional
income.
3 The assessee carried
the matter in the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals who accepted the
factum of purchases being bogus. However, he compared the purchases and sales
statement of the assessee and observed that the department had accepted the
sale, and therefore, there was no reason to reject the purchases, because
without purchases there cannot be sales. He, therefore, held that under these
circumstances A.O. was not correct in adding the entire amount of purchases as
the assessee’s income. He, therefore, deleted the addition refreshing it to 10
% of the purchase amount. He also directed the A.O. to make addition to the
extent of difference between the gross profit rate as per the books of accounts
on undisputed purchases and gross profit on sales relating to the purchases
made from the said three parties.
4 The assessee carried
the matter before the Tribunal. The Revenue also carried the issue before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned Judgment allowed the appeal of the
assessee partly and dismissed that of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the
CIT(A) had not given any reasons for retaining 10 % of the purchases by way of
ad hoc additions. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted such additions, but retained
the portion of the order of the CIT(A) to that extent he permitted the A.O. to
tax the assessee on the basis of difference in the GP rates.
Learned counsel Mr
Chhotaray for the Revenue strenuously contended that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal
committed serious error. In the present case when it was established that the
purchases are bogus, the entire amount should have been added to the income of
the assessee. There is no question of granting any relief in the facts of the
case. In this context he relied on a decision of the Division Bench of Gujrat
High Court in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs Dy. C.I.T. in Tax Appeal No.
240 of 2003 and connected appeals decided on 20 th June, 2016. In such judgment
the Court had observed as under-
“The Tribunal in the
case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT had observed that it would be just and
proper to direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition in respect of
the undisclosed income relating to the purchases to 25 % of the total
purchases. The said decision was confirmed by this Court as well. On
consideration of the matter, we find that the facts of the present case are
identical to those of M/s Indian Woolen Carpet Factory (supra) or M/s. Vijay
Proteins Ltd. In the present case the Tribunal has categorically observed that
the assessee had shown bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,92,93,288/- and taxing
only 25 % of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and
69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of
fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the
transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a
categorical fiding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/- represented alleged
purchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the
disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-.”
6 Counsel pointed out
that the S.L.P. against such decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
7 On the other hand, Ms
Khan learned counsel for the assessee opposed the appeals contending that the
Tribunal has given proper reasons. The assessee was a trader. Even if the
purchases are found to be bogus, entire purchase amount cannot be added by way
of assessee’s income.
8 In the present case,
as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three
entities who were indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the
purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a
finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question
arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase
amount should be added by way of assessee’s additional income or the assessee
is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding of the
CIT(A) and the Tribunal would suggest that the department had not disputed the
assessee’s sales. There was no discrepancy between the purchases shown by the
assessee and the sales declared. That being the position, the Tribunal was
correct in coming to the conclusion that the purchases cannot be rejected
without disturbing the sales in case of a trader. The Tribunal, therefore,
correctly restricted the additions limited to the extent of bringing the G.P.
rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases.
The decision of the
Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. (supra) cannot be
applied without reference to the facts. In fact in paragraph 8 of the same
Judgment the Court held and observed as under-
” So far as the
question regarding addition of Rs.3,70,78,125/- as gross profit on sales of
Rs.37.08 Crores made by the Assessing Officer despite the fact that the said
sales had admittedly been recorded in the regular books during Financial Year
1997-98 is concerned, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be punished
since sale price is accepted by the revenue. Therefore, even if 6 % gross
profit is taken into account, the corresponding cost price is required to be
deducted and tax cannot be levied on the same price. We have to reduce the
selling price accordingly as a result of which profit comes to 5.66 %.
Therefore, considering
5.66 % of Rs. 3,70,78,125/- which comes to Rs.20,98,621.88 we think it fit to
direct the revenue to add Rs.20,98,621.88 as gross profit and make necessary
deductions accordingly. Accordingly, the said question is answered partially in
favour of the assessee and partially in favour of the revenue.”
9 In these
circumstances, no question of law, therefore, arises. All Income Tax Appeals
are dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------