RANDEEP SINGH GOGNA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 58(7), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9014/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash transactions in such an unorganized trade and the divergent views on bogus purchases. It decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, which would also cover commission expenses.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the disallowance of purchases and commission expenses treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The assessee was engaged in trading copper wires, and their sales were not questioned.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases and commission expenses treated as bogus by the revenue authorities are to be disallowed entirely, considering the nature of the assessee's business and the lack of challenge to sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.9014/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sh. Randeep Singh Gogna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o- M/s. Raj Kumar & Ward-58(7), Associates, Delhi L-7A (LGF), South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi – 110 049 PAN: CYFPG6301R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv. Department by Sh. Sudip Majumdar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2022-23, 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/250/2025-26/1081484128(1), dated 06.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.9014/Del/2025

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 amounting to Rs.3,12,84,103/- (i.e. @ 12.50% of the total purchases Rs.25,02,72,826/-) in AY 2022-23 and commission @ 2% thereon, amounting to Rs.50,05,456/-, sourced from various entities, namely, M/s. Om Traders, M/s. Shyam Metal Co., M/s. Astral Metallic, Shri Ganesh Agency, M/s. Inderjeet Trading Co., M/s. Manthan Trading Co. and M/s. JMD Enterprises as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 27.03.2024, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. 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 trading of copper wires all along wherein possibility of cash turnover & purchase in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that his corresponding sales have nowhere 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 2 | P a g e

ITA No.9014/Del/2025

(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. 4. Faced with these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 5% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 3,12,84,103/- 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 disallowance, if any, as well. 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 7th September, 2026. RK/- 3 | P a g e

ITA No.9014/Del/2025

More judgments on Section 69C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →