DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 01 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAKSHAT JAIN, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8553/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals concerning assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22, arising from proceedings under Section 153C initiated after a search action. The assessee challenged the initiation of these proceedings and the subsequent assessments, while the Revenue contested the relief granted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the quantification of additions made on account of alleged bogus sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Sanwariya, Adv
Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Sh. Sakshat Jain, Vs. ACIT, 34, Pragati Apartments, Central Circle-2, Block C1 Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi North West, Delhi -110 034 PAN: AFSPJ9135Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA Nos.8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 DCIT, Vs. Sh. Sakshat Jain, Central Circle-1, A-34, Pragati Apartments, New Delhi West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi -110 034 PAN: AFSPJ9135Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shilpi Sanwariya, Adv. Department by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 30.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s instant fours appeals ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 and Revenue’s as many cross appeals ITA Nos. 8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025 for assessment years 2018-

ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 & ITA Nos.8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025

19 to 2021-22, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-23 orders, all dated 09.10.2025, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1081587654(1),1081587654(1), 1081587654(1) and 1081587654, involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee seeks to canvass its first and foremost substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action initiating/framing section 153C proceedings and assessments in its case; all dated 30.03.2024. We notice from a perusal of the case records that the learned departmental authorities appear to have carried out section 132 search action in M/s. K.K. Spun group of cases where they found some alleged incriminating material indicating the assessee to have availed bogus sales entries through a well-orchestrated accommodation entry network. They accordingly set into motion section 153C proceedings in his case which finally culminated in the impugned assessments framed on 30.03.2024 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion.

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 & ITA Nos.8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025

3.

Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that we ought to quash the impugned assessments as non-est ones in the eyes of law since not based on a proper satisfaction note recorded under section 153C. We find that no such satisfaction note forms part of the case records before us. This is further coupled with the fact that both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have recorded their unanimous reasoning(s) that the aforesaid seized material in fact pertained to and the information therein related to the assessee’s bogus sale entries availed through the searched parties M/s. K.K. Spun group of cases. We thus find no merit in the assessee’s instant legal ground and uphold the departmental action taking recourse to section 153C proceedings herein. Rejected accordingly. 4. Next comes the identical sole substantive issue between the parties on merits. It emerges from a perusal of the assessee’s and the Revenue’s “lead” cross appeal in the first and foremost assessment year 2018-19 that the Assessing Officer found the assessee’s total sales entries to the tune of Rs.7,38,51,580/- availed from the aforesaid searched parties which stood assessed @ 6.9% commission component resulting in addition of

3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 & ITA Nos.8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025

Rs.50,97,973/- as partly restricted in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order, as under: “11.4 I am of the opinion & considering the material seized, the nature of business, and the prevailing industry practice, it is reasonable to hold that the appellant earned commission income on such transactions. I find that the AO has charged commission income @6.90% which is on very higher side as there are several judicial precedents wherein commission income on such transactions were held to be charged @ 1 to 1.5%. It is also a matter of facts that the appellant has already included the profit element of these sales while accounting GP rate @ 1.73% for the AY 2018-19 on combined turnover, whereas if these tainted parties i.e. KK Spun and Giga Pipe are excluded then the GP is 1.97%. In the other words, the appellant is reducing its GP to the extent of 0.24% for the year under consideration. For AY 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 the difference is 0.66%, 0.71%, and 0.88% respectively. Therefore, considering the same I hereby restrict the commission income to the extent of 3% of the total sales made to M/s KK Spun India Limited & Giga Pipes and the addition is being sustained to the extent of 1.27% [3% minus 1.73% (i.e. difference of restricted commission with the GP rate)], which comes to the tune of Rs. 9,37,915/- (i.e. 1.27% of 7,38,51,580/-) and direct the AO to re- compute the income of the appellant accordingly. Thus, ground no. 2 to 7 are partly allowed.” It is in this factual backdrop that both the assessee as well as the department have filed their instant identical cross appeals that we ought to delete the impugned addition or uphold the same in entirety; respectively. 5. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment findings herein. We wish to clarify here that his assessment discussion has duly elaborated the fact that the aforesaid searched party had acted as a mere accommodation entry 4 | P a g e

ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 & ITA Nos.8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025

provider to the assessee as well as similarly situated persons. We thus find no reason to interfere with the same since supported by detailed evidences gathered during search and the inquiries carried out thereafter. We uphold the learned lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s sales sourced from M/s. K.K. Spun group of companies as bogus ones in principle. 6. Next comes the equally important aspects of quantification of the impugned addition. Learned CIT(A) has admittedly granted part relief to the assessee whilst reducing the commission component on the aforesaid alleged bogus sales to 3% (supra) which is not found to be based on any segmental comparables as well. The facts also remains that the impugned sales are found to be treated as bogus once only, we do not see any logic in applying the profit element thereupon @ 3% as well being on a bit higher side. Faced with these situations, after taking into consideration totality of the relevant facts and circumstances, we hereby conclude that a lumpsum GP estimation @ 1% or that declared in the assessee’s books, whichever is higher, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee

5 | P a g e

ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 & ITA Nos.8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025

gets part relief and the department’s corresponding arguments are hereby rejected in very terms therefore. 7. The assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.8309 to 8312/Del/2025 are partly allowed and the Revenue’s as many cross appeals ITA Nos. 8682, 8553, 9109 & 8683/Del/2025 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →