JITIN CHUGH,DR.MUKERJEE NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 70(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7570/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's book entries for the impugned purchases. It directed a lumpsum disallowance of 1% on the alleged bogus purchases, stating this would not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases of Rs. 23,10,775/- were treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The assessee was engaged in trading goods online, and while sales were not questioned, the AO calculated a higher net profit than declared.

What were the issues?

Whether the purchases treated as bogus by the AO and CIT(A) were indeed bogus, and if so, what should be the disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maitey, Adv
Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085163007(1), dated 27.01.2026

ITA No. 7570/Del/2026

involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 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.23,10,775/- which is the difference of NP declared by assessee in P&L account @ 0.7% and the NP of the assessee calculated by AO @ 2% of the declared turnover i.e Rs. 33,76,044/- 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 ones.

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 day-to-day usage goods/ commodities, through online portals 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

ITA No. 7570/Del/2026

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.

5.

Faced with these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum GP disallowance @ 1% assessee’s alleged bogus sales/purchases amounting to Rs.23,10,775/- in 2021-22, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 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.

ITA No. 7570/Del/2026

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10/09/2026 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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →