DIMPI BATRA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5279/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance was also to cover the undisclosed commission expenditure.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the lower authorities' decision to treat purchases of Rs. 11,65,000/- as bogus and Rs. 58,250/- as undisclosed expenses. The assessee was in the business of trading mobile accessories, and their sales were not questioned.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases treated as bogus and undisclosed commission expenses are valid. The tribunal considered divergent judicial views on bogus purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5279/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dimpi Batra, Vs. Income Tax Officer, SF-04, 2nd Floor, Regent Ward-50(1), Mall, Hardhyan Singh Road, New Delhi Karol Bagh, Delhi PAN: AMBPB1743Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nipun Gupta, CA Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2025-26/1082420940(1), dated 10.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Delay of 100 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

ITA No.5279/Del/2026

3.

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 his purchases of Rs.11,65,000/- sourced from M/s. Bhagwati Enterprises as bogus ones under section 69A of the Act and Rs.58,250/- as undisclosed expenses towards commission; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned purchases as bogus one. 5. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of mobile accessories, like chargers, mobile LCD etc., all along where possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that its 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 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd.; (2025) 172

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5279/Del/2026

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. 6. 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 sales/purchases amounting to Rs.11,65,000/- in 2018-19, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The same shall also take care of alleged commission expenditure of Rs.58,250/- as well. 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. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 3 | P a g e

ITA No.5279/Del/2026

2.

Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →