G.K. MARKETING & APPARELS LLP,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee provided some documents, critical evidence regarding the existence of the vendor and physical proof of transactions was missing. However, the assessee's books were not rejected. The Tribunal directed the AO to confirm an addition of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases and delete the addition on account of estimated commission.
What were the facts?
The assessee was alleged to have made bogus purchases of Rs. 27,19,979/- with M/s Gora Enterprises Private Limited. The AO added this amount under Section 69C, and also added an estimated commission of Rs. 54,399/-. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the purchases were genuine, and if not, what should be the extent of addition. Whether the estimated commission addition was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3068/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, G.K. MARKETING & APPARELS LLP 3/22, West Patel Nagari, Income Tax Office, Delhi 110008. Ward 51(1), Civic Centre, PAN No.AAOFG8286A New Delhi, Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent
Assessee by Ms. Sanju Saini, Adv. (VC) Revenue by Ms. Kranti, CIT DR
Date of hearing: 01.09.2026 Pronouncement on 01.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 01.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.
1.1 In this case, there was an allegation that the assessee was involved in bogus purchases amounting to Rs.27,19,979/- with one M/s Gora Enterprises Private Limited. The ld. AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 and thereafter the assessee filed a return of income on 14.04.2022. The Ld. AO relied on the enquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing to hold that the transaction amounting to Rs.27,19,979/- with M/s Gora Enterprises Pvt. Limited was bogus and thereafter he added the same u/s 69C of the Act.
1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where documents and details filed by the assessee including invoices, ledgers, band details, stock/transport related papers etc. were disbelieved as self-serving documents and thereafter the addition of Rs.27,19,979/- was confirmed, as also the addition of Rs.54,399/- by way of estimated commission for arranging bogus entries.
1.3 The assessee has now approached the ITAT with 12 grounds of appeal which challenge the action of authorities below.
The Ld. AR stated that the assessee had filed on all manner of documentation to convince the authorities below that the impugned transactions were genuine. It was the submission that the authorities below have largely relied on the enquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing to hold that the purchases were bogus. In this regard, the evidences filed by the assessee have been totally disregarded. It was submitted that the assessee’s plea for cross examination of third parties was also denied by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR concluded his arguments by stating that the books of account of the assessee had not been rejected u/s 145 of the Act, meaning thereby that the same were in order. On the issue of estimated commission it was argued that this addition was made on surmises and conjectures and thus, was deserving to be deleted in full. 2 2.1 The Ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below and stated that the assessee had not made substantial compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. AO and a glance at the table of opportunities on page 2 of the Ld. AO’s order would show that the assessee was not very forthcoming in terms of filing material in his support.
We have heard the Ld.AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that while the assessee has submitted the documents in his possession in support of his claim about the genuineness of the transaction but the critical evidence regarding the existence of M/s Gora Enterprises Pvt. Limited and the physical proof of the transaction were never supplied. However, we also note that the book results of the assessee have not been disturbed by the Ld. AO and it is also a trite position that even if the purchases are bogus then there would be some corresponding sale which would be reflected in the books of account. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to direct the Ld. AO to confirm an addition amounting to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases and grant consequential relief on the amount remaining thereafter. We also direct that since the so called commission has been determined on an ad hoc basis, the addition on that account be deleted.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026