PARVEEN KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5421/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,42,444.55, with the rider that this decision would not be treated as a precedent. The addition made on account of commission at 2% was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases of Rs. 28,48,891/- were treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The assessee is engaged in the waste paper business, where cash turnover is possible, and their sales were not questioned.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases treated as bogus under Section 69C are sustainable when the assessee is in a business with potential for cash turnover and sales are not disputed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: CA (VC)
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.5421/Del/2026 Assessment Year:2020-21 Sh. Parveen Kumar, Vs. ITO, Ward-1. 112, Devi Murti Colony, Panipat, Haryana Panipat PAN: ABVPK1756D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA (VC) Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 08.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises

against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National

Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s

order 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.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’scondonation

averments, delay of 103 days in filing of the instant appeal is

ITA No.5421/Del/2026

condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji&

Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

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 its purchases of

Rs.28,48,891/- in AY 2020-21, sourced from various parties as

bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order

dated 30.4.2025 and in the appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate

their respective stands against and in support of the impugned

bogus purchases disallowance. I wish to make it clear that there

is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the

business of waste paper wherein possibility of cash turnover

could not be altogether ruled out. And that his corresponding

sales have nowhere been questioned. Various recent 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 taxmann.com 283 (Bom) PCIT

Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd; (2025) 178 taxmann.com 424 (Del. –

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5421/Del/2026

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.

5.

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 purchases

amounting to Rs.28,48,891/-, would be just and proper with a

rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. However,

the addition made on account of commission @2% is deleted.

Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th July, 2026. SR BHATNAGAR 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 →