GRAND LEGENDARY PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 10(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6077/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged divergent views on bogus purchases but, in the interest of justice, allowed a lumpsum disallowance of 4% on alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance was to cover any commission expenditure and was not to be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the lower authorities' decision to treat purchases of Rs. 23,51,561/- as bogus and disallowed commission thereon. The assessee is engaged in trading of mobile accessories and garments, with unassailable sales and receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases treated as bogus by revenue authorities are indeed bogus, and the allowability of commission on such purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6077/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Grand Legendary Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited Ward-10(3), 49-G, (Garage) SFS Flats, C.R. Building Sector-7, Jasola Vihar, Delhi - 110002 New Delhi – 110025 PAN: AAGCG6609N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. R.K. Mehra, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 20.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2026 ORDER 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/250/2025-26/1087137475(1), dated 10.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144 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 his purchases of Rs.23,51,561/- sourced from M/s. Jain Cement Udyog as bogus ones and commission @ 3% thereon, amounting to Rs.70,546/- under section 69C of the Act; 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 mobile accessories, garments etc. all along where possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that its 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

2 | P a g e 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 @ 4% of the assessee’s alleged bogus sales/purchases amounting to Rs.20,68,000 in 2019-20, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The same shall also take care of any alleged commission expenditure, if any, as well. The assessee’s book entries to this effect are hereby rejected to the very extent. Necessary computation(s) 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 20th August, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th September, 2026. 3 | P a g e Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →