GOVIND AGARWAL (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ANITA AGARWAL),UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), UTTAR PRADESH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8109/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Govind Agarwal (through Vs. ACIT, Legal Heir Anita Agarwal), Circle-1(1)(1), 12-B, Navin Mandi, Meerut Delhi Road, Meerut-250 002 PAN : AASPA7004J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 14.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, 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/250/2025-26/1081645772(1), dated 10.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.8109/Del/2025

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 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 purchases of Rs.28,10,304/- in AY 2019-20, sourced from of M/s. Trinity Overseas as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 30.03.2025, 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 disallowance. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of papers all along 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.8109/Del/2025

(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 amounting to Rs. 28,10,304/-, 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 14th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th 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