VIPIN KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-3, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1009/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 July 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision was made to balance justice, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 2,65,29,703/-, which were treated as bogus purchases by the lower authorities. The assessee is in the business of advertising and related services, and their sales were not questioned.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the entire amount of purchases treated as bogus should be disallowed, considering the assessee's business and un-questioned sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

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
For Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Sr. DR
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.1009/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Sh. Vipin Kumar, Vs. ACIT, C-6B, Gali No. 3, Gamri CC-3, Extension, Sudamapuri, Delhi Delhi -110053 PAN: BPWPK0459K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Mukesh Jain, CA Sh. Atul Dhama, CA Department by Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Sr. 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 2023-24, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-23 order dated 28.11.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083094092(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.1009/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 its expenses of Rs.2,65,29,703/- in AY 2023-24, sourced from M/s. Sapphire Solutions as bogus ones under section 37 of the Act, in the assessment order dated 31.03.2025, 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 providing advertising, affiliate marketing, brand building and brand promotion activities 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 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd.;

2 | P a g e

ITA No.1009/Del/2026

(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 @ 6% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,65,29,703/-, 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 16th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th July, 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 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →