AA ENTERPRISES,VILLAGE RASOOLPUR DASNA vs. ITO,WARD 5(1)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

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 No.910/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. AA Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Rasoolpur Dasna, Ward-5(1)(1), Post Vidhyut Nagar, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida Uttar Pradesh PAN: ABSFA1080H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA Sh. Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Adv. Department by Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 10.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, 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/250/2023-24/1059292141(1), dated 02.01.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.910/Del/2024

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 its expenditure of Rs.1,38,28,213/- paid to Sh. Ankit, as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 23.12.2022, 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/expenditure disallowance. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged all along in the business of civil contract work and takes various contract of civil activities for group house society like plaster, plumbing work, tilling work etc. wherein possibility of assessee sourcing its purchases from unregistered dealers per se could not be altogether ruled out as well. 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 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF),

2 | P a g e

ITA No.910/Del/2024

(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 thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 5% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases/expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,38,28,213/-, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee’s book entries are hereby rejected to the very extent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHNADRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18th 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