PARVEEN KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ITO, PANIPAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3325/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Parveen Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 12193/3, Deshraj Colony, Ward-1, Panipat, Ashgharpur, Panipat Panipat PAN: AUTPK7672B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Lalit Mohan Pandey, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 02.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, 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/250/2025-26/1085465601(1), dated 02.02.2026 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. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both

ITA No.3325/Del/2026

the learned lower authorities’ action treating its purchases of Rs.34,15,851/- in AY 2019-20, sourced from the entity M/s. Megna Enterprises as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act. Further, disallowances of Rs.68,317/-, Rs.21,178/- and Rs.22,345/- were made on account of commission @ 2% of the impugned purchases; commission @ 0.62% of total turnover, and excess deduction claimed u/s 80C; respectively, in the assessment order dated 25.03.2025, and 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. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is dealing in the waste of non-ferrous metal, like copper, brass, aluminium etc. 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 recent 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

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3325/Del/2026

(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. – 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 @ 5% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.34,15,851/-, 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.68,317/- and Rs. 21,178/- as well. 5. As far as the remaining disallowance of Rs.22,345/- u/s 80C is concerned, I deem it appropriate to restore the same to the Assessing Officer for its afresh verification/calculation. The assessee’s book entries are hereby rejected to the very extent. 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.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.3325/Del/2026

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23rd July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e