PAWAN KUMAR ,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-30, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1279/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be entirely ruled out as bogus, the assessee's book entries were rejected to the extent of applying a profit rate on the impugned purchases. This was done in the interest of justice, considering divergent judicial views on similar issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a civil contractor, challenged the disallowance of purchases treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The purchases were made from specific suppliers across multiple assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases from specific suppliers can be treated as bogus and disallowed. The applicability of a profit rate on such purchases when sales are not questioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

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: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 17.07.2026

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 Nos.1277 to 1280/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 to 2020-21 Sh. Pawan Kumar, Vs. DCIT, C/o- Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv., Central Circle -30, G-8/5, Sector-11, Opposite New Delhi SFS Apartments, Rohini, New Delhi PAN: AJOPK5636P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 08.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos. 1277 to 1280/Del/2026 for assessment year 2017-18 to 2020-21, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi orders, all dated 23.12.2025, passed in case nos. CIT(A), Delhi-30/10499/2016-17, 10315/2017-18, 10541/2018-19 and 10695/2019-20, involving proceedings under

ITA Nos.1277 to 1280/Del/2026

section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) 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 the learned lower authorities’ action treating his purchases amounting to Rs.21,61,565/- in AY 2017-18; Rs.4,45,66,490/- in AY 2018-19; Rs.21,73,67,674/- in AY 2019-20 and Rs.43,21,475/- in AY 2020-21 sourced from M/s. Sanjay Jain (Jain Cement Udyog), Mahaveer Associates and Forever Exim India Pvt. Ltd., as bogus one under section 69C of the Act, in the respective assessment orders, 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 a civil Contractor & Engineer, engaged in diverse segment such as roads, power, building projects, irrigation and water supply, utilities and urban infrastructure, pan India all along wherein possibility of assessee sourcing his purchases from unregistered dealers per se could not

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1277 to 1280/Del/2026

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 (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 NP of the impugned purchases @ 4.35% of Rs.21,61,565/-; 4.09% of Rs.4,45,66,490/-; 3.50% of Rs.21,73,67,674/- and 3.60% of Rs.43,21,475/- in AYs 2017-18 to 2020-21; respectively, going by the accepted profit rate, 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 limited extent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed.

3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.1277 to 1280/Del/2026

5.

These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.1277 to 1280/Del/2026 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th 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

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →