DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3560, 3561 & 3562/Del/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2019-20 & 2022-23 DCIT, Vs. M/s. A.L.M. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Flat No. SF-1-B, 2nd Floor, Property No.43, A.G.C.R. Central Delhi, Delhi -110002 PAN: AABCA1960D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These Revenue’s three appeals ITA Nos.3560, 3561 & 3562/Del/2026 for assessment years 2013-14, 2019-20 & 2022- 23, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, all dated 20.01.2026, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1084973482(1), 1084976373(1) and 1084978533(1) involving

ITA Nos.3560, 3561 & 3562/Del/2026

proceedings under section 147 and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee/respondent’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. Learned CIT(DR) canvasses the Revenue’s substantive grounds herein that the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts, inter alia, in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action estimating GP in the assessee’s hands from that @ 17.11 % to 14% as well as in deleting the corresponding bogus purchases disallowance involving varying sums assessment year-wise, respectively. 3. That being the case, we notice from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion in the “lead” assessment year 2013-14 para 5.3.8 to 5.3.11 that he has gone by the market comparables in the assessee’s segment only coming in the range of 13% to 15% to estimate its GP @ 14% of the total sales in question. We thus express our complete agreement with the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate findings which are hereby affirmed. 4. Next comes the latter substantive ground seeking to revive the impugned bogus purchases disallowance(s) in the assessee’s hands. Suffice to say, it has come on record that it is already an

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.3560, 3561 & 3562/Del/2026

instance of GP estimation as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. We thus quote Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP) to conclude that the same has no legs to stand once the assessee’s books of account already stand rejected. The Revenue fails in its instant latter substantive ground as well. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 5. These Revenue’s three appeals ITA Nos. 3560, 3561 & 3562/Del/2026 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 13TH August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th August, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e