PRANJUL JAIN,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6623, 6624 & 6625/Del/2026 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Sh. Pranjul Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, ½, DSIDC Complex, Ward-3(5), Phase-1, Sultanpuri, New Dehi New Delhi PAN: ANIPJ9815D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 04.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 04.08.2026 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.6623, 6624 & 6625/Del/2026 for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders dated 09.03.2026 (in AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20) & 11.03.2026 (in AY: 2020-21) having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087090693(1), 1087093254(1) and 1087212752(1), involving proceedings under

ITA Nos.6623, 6624 & 6625/Del/2026

section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 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 his purchases of Rs.14,82,542/- (i.e. 12.5% of total purchases of Rs.1,23,54,520/-) ; Rs. 2,61,591/- (i.e. 12.5% of total purchases of Rs.20,92,730) sourced from M/s. Nagpal Bros. and Rs.31,22,500/- sourced from M/s Johnson Watch Group, M/s Kapoor Watch Group in AYs 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21; respectively, as undisclosed expenses towards commission; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned purchases as bogus one. 4. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of plastic items, all along where possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that its

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.6623, 6624 & 6625/Del/2026

corresponding receipts and sales therefrom have also not been questioned in both the lower proceedings. Various 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 decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views i.e. both accepting or partly allowing or rejecting the same in entirety; as the case may be. 5. Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum GP disallowance @ 3% of the assessee’s alleged bogus sales/purchases amounting to Rs.14,82,542/-; Rs. 2,61,591/- and Rs.31,22,500/- in the assessee’s hands in AYs 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee’s book entries to this effect are hereby

3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.6623, 6624 & 6625/Del/2026

rejected to the very extent. Necessary computation(s) shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 6. These assessee’s three appeals appeal ITA Nos.6623, 6624 & 6625/Del/2026 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th August, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21st September, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e