POLLUCON TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6485/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to disallow a lump sum amount of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance is not to be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases of Rs. 16,24,448 from specific suppliers were treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The assessee is in the business of wholesale industrial chemicals, and its sales were not questioned.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases from specific suppliers are bogus and liable for disallowance under Section 69C, and whether a lump sum disallowance is appropriate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088331813(1) dated 07.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating its purchases of Rs. 16,24,448 in AY 2019-20, sourced from the Shri Sanjay Jain and entities associated with him, including M/s Mahaveer Associates and M/s RR Associates as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 24.12.2024, and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale of industrial chemicals all along wherein possibility of assessee sourcing its purchases from unregistered dealers per se could not be altogether ruled out as well. And that his corresponding sales have nowhere been questioned in both the lower proceedings. Various recent judicial precedents (2025) 173 taxmann.com 592 (Guj.) Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhamelia vs. ACIT; (2024) 160 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd.; (2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd; (2025) 178 taxmann.com 424 (Del. – Trib.) DCIT Vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well.

5.

Faced with these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum GP disallowance @ 5% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 16,24,448 /-, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee’s book entries are hereby rejected to the very extent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- SANJAY AWASTHI SATBEER SINGH GODARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER New Delhi Dated: 18.09.2026 Pooja mittal, sr. ps

Copy to: POLLUCON TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, 311 SYNDICATE HOUSE, 3, OLD ROHTAK 1 ROAD, DELHI-110035, DELHI

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(1), 2 C. R. BUILDING,DELHI, DELHI, DELHI-110002, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →