CASH UR DRIVE MARKETING PVT LTD,NOIDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 30 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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 No.976/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Cash UR Drive Marketing Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Central Circle-30, 1103-1104, World Tade New Delhi Tower -B, Sector 16, Noida, Gautam Buddha, Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201 301 PAN: AADCC7419D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Harry Rikhy, Adv. Department by Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1079820740(1), dated 21.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.976/Del/2026

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 90 days in filing of the instant appeal is 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.4,98,61,326/- in AY 2021-22, sourced from Sh. Rajiv Jain as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 26.12.2022, as upheld in the lower 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. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing advertising and branding services 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

2 | P a g e

ITA No.976/Del/2026

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. 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. 4,98,61,326/-, 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 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. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 3 | P a g e

ITA No.976/Del/2026

Dated: 14th 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