RAVI GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 14, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 971/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 August 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while sourcing from unregistered dealers was possible, the entire 8% disallowance was not justified. It decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 2.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a commission agent dealing in metal scraps, had purchases of Rs. 24,29,06,292/-. The lower authorities treated 8% of these purchases as bogus under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of treating a significant portion of the assessee's purchases as bogus and the quantum of disallowance for alleged bogus purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 143(3)

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 Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

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.971/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sh. Ravi Gupta, Vs. DCIT, GP-58, Second Floor, Central Circle-14, Pitampur, Rani Bagh New Delhi Saraswati Vihar, Northwest Delhi -110034, Delhi PAN: AJMPG2865L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA Department by Ms. Priyanka Durbey, 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 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-26 DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1083005524(1), dated 26.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.971/Del/2026

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 8% of entire purchases of Rs.24,29,06,292/- in AY 2021-22, coming to Rs.1,94,32,503/- sourced from of various entities as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 28.12.2022, 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 disallowance. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is an individual and working as a commission agent of all kinds of ferrous and non- ferrous metal scraps, mainly dealing in brass, copper, aluminum, zinc and steel 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), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93

2 | P a g e

ITA No.971/Del/2026

(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 @ 2.5% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 24,29,06,292/-, 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

More judgments on Section 69C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →