INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 44.6, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. PRAMOD AGRAWAL, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6987/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business. Considering the divergent views on bogus purchases, a lumpsum disallowance of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed appropriate.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision regarding purchases treated as bogus. The assessee was engaged in trading mobile accessories and garments, with unorganized cash turnover not being questioned.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases from a specific party were bogus and the appropriate disallowance in such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 6987/Del/2026
ITA No. 6988/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Both appeals filed by the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 & 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ADDL/JCIT(A) -1, Mumbai [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-

ITA No. 6987 & 6988/Del/2026

26/1087262390(1), dated 12.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 27 days in filing of the Revenue’s instant both appeal are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his purchases of Rs.25,48,184/- and 26,00,000/- sourced from M/s. Urotek Industries as bogus ones under section 69A of the Act; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned purchases as bogus one.

5.

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

ITA No. 6987 & 6988/Del/2026

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 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.

6.

Faced with these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 3% 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 assessee’s

ITA No. 6987 & 6988/Del/2026

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.

7.

Both Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19/08/2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25.08.2026. Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →