HINDUSTAN GOLD REFINERS & MINT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1008/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 August 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business and the lack of dispute regarding sales. Considering divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, a lumpsum disallowance of 1% of the disputed purchases was deemed appropriate.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in gold and silver trading, challenged the disallowance of purchases treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The total disputed purchases amounted to Rs. 56,53,22,591/-.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases treated as bogus by the revenue authorities are to be disallowed entirely, or if a partial disallowance is warranted given the nature of the business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA Sh. Atul Dhama, CA
Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

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.1008/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Hindustan Gold Refiners & Vs. DCIT, Mint Pvt. Ltd., Circle -10(1), 2214, Shop No. 401, Delhi Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN: AADCJ2611C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Mukesh Jain, CA Sh. Atul Dhama, CA Department by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 16.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 16.07.2026 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/250/2025-26/1083070150(1), dated 27.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.1008/Del/2026

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee raises his sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his purchases amounting to Rs.29,81,10,071/- and Rs.26,72,12,520/-, aggregating to Rs.56,53,22,591/- sourced from Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Rs.12,56,31,271/-), Sh. Sandeep Edward Lawrence (Rs.7,85,87,300/-) and Sh. Aman Tyagi (Rs.9,38,91,500/-) and Ms. Soniya (Rs.26,72,12,520/-) in assessment year 2021-22; as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in assessment order dated 28.02.2024 which stand 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 in gold and silver bullion wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that his 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

2 | P a g e

ITA No.1008/Del/2026

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. 4. Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 1% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.56,53,22,591/- in AY 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th August, 2026. 3 | P a g e

ITA No.1008/Del/2026

RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →