INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARNAL vs. RAMESH CHANDRA VERMA, KARNAL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8551/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Ramesh Chandra Karnal Verma, Prop. M/s. Haryana Rice Land, Namaste Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal, Haryana PAN: ABPPV2398Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 14.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.06.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, 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/250/2025-26/1081791141(1), dated 15.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.8551/Del/2025

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee/respondent’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The Revenue pleads the follow substantive grounds: i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the facts of the case, by restricting the addition Rs. 6,41,162/- 3% of Rs. 2,13,72,077/-) on the bogus purchases on Rs. 2,13,72,077)- which were made by the assessee from the fake entities and assessee also failed to produce supporting documents which could prove that it was made from genuine entities." ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer's findings were based on concrete and corroborated material evidence collected during the course of assessment as well as information received from the Investigation Unit, and hence the relief of Rs.2,20,70,619/- granted to the assessee is unjustified and liable to be reversed.] 3. Suffice to say, the Revenue’s endeavour herein challenges the CIT(A)’s action restricting the assessee’s bogus purchase disallowance of Rs.2,13,72,077/- made in the assessment order to the extent of 3% only representing the GP component therein. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute going by the case laws (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 2 | P a g e

ITA No.8551/Del/2025

taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. that have decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views i.e. both accepting or partly allowing or rejecting the same in entirety; as the case may be. We thus uphold CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings granting part relief to the assessee in very terms. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th June, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e