BAKI PACKI PRIVATE LIMITED,DSIIDC INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NARELA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, W32, AO-3, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2949/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2026AY 2020-2112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's order was passed ex-parte under Section 147/144. The Tribunal observed that most of the additions were made due to a lack of verification of all documents at the AO's level. Considering the element of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present all details and documents as required by law. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary details and documents with the revenue to facilitate an early passing of an order. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific findings were made on the merits of the additions or grounds of appeal by the Tribunal itself; the decision was procedural.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Baki Packi Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal challenges additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A). The AO's order was passed under Section 147/144, indicating a best judgment assessment. The assessee contended that the additions were based on unsubstantiated purchases and non-deduction of TDS. The total disputed amount, as per the grounds of appeal, is INR 95,38,341, which includes INR 93,00,801 related to purchase expenses and INR 2,37,540 on account of alleged non-deduction of TDS. The assessee argued that sales were wrongly treated as purchases, certain purchases were not claimed, and others were reversed within the same financial year. The assessee also claimed TDS was duly deducted and deposited on rent payments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of INR 93,00,801/- on account of purchase expenses is justified, considering the assessee's claim that sales were wrongly characterized as purchases, no purchases were claimed, or purchases were reversed within the same financial year? (Question of fact and law, concerning Section 40A(ia) and Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the addition of INR 2,37,540/- on account of alleged non-deduction of TDS on rent is justified, considering the assessee's claim of having duly deducted and deposited TDS? (Question of fact and law, concerning Chapter XVII-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: - The additions on account of unsubstantiated purchases are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Sales to Shalla & Sons, JJ Enterprise, and Archana Enterprises were wrongly treated as bogus purchases, despite being recorded as sales and reported in GSTR-1 and the Income-tax Insight Portal. The assessee argued that treating disclosed and taxed sales as bogus purchases is impermissible. - The addition of INR 8,53,900/- for alleged purchases from Zetex Enterprises is factually incorrect, as no purchases were received or claimed from this party. - Purchases from Avenue Traders, Surbhi Traders, and Gems Enterprises, totaling INR 25,00,272, INR 25,00,210, and INR 25,00,210 respectively, were fully reversed in the same financial year and credited to Indirect Income, meaning no purchase expense was ultimately debited or claimed. This resulted in no understatement or under-reporting of income. The assessee relied on the principle from 'A CI T — 17(3) v- Shri Vipin B. Shah [2014]' regarding unsustainable additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. - The addition of INR 2,37,540/- on account of alleged non-deduction of TDS on rent is factually incorrect, as TDS was duly deducted and deposited. The assessee provided copies of TDS returns, challans, and ledger accounts as evidence. - The assessee also challenged interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C and penalty proceedings under Section 270A. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(ia),Section 69C,Section 270A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH

Hearing: 13.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T A. No.2949/Del/2026 (A.Y 2020-21) Baki Packi Private Limited Assessment Unit Vs. W32 AO-3 Plot No. 147, Block-A, Income Tax Department New Delhi New Delhi PAN No.AAFCB6768C

Appellant by: Sh. Bipin Kakkar, CA Respondent by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 13.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has filed its grounds of appeal alongwith submission which is reproduced as under :-

1 | P a g e

2 | P a g e

3 | P a g e

4 | P a g e

5 | P a g e

6 | P a g e

7 | P a g e

8 | P a g e

9 | P a g e

10 | P a g e

3.

During proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the AO was u/s.147/144, therefore, he requested that for due verification all the details / documents the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO.

4.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.

5.

We have considered the findings given by the AO in the exparte assessment order passed in the case of the assessee and we are of this considered view that most of the addition have been made because of none verification of all the documents at AO level.

6.

Accordingly, keeping in view the element of natural justice we remand this case back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to give adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law and the assessee is also directed to file all details and documents to the revenue so that the order may be passed at the earliest.

11 | P a g e

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SD (MAHAVIR SINGH) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 20/08/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

12 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 40A(ia)

All 289 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →