SHANKAR METAL & ALLOYS,GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7510/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Shankar Metal & Alloys, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-0/251, Industrial Area Ghaziabad South Side, G.T. Road, Amrit Steel Compound, Ghaziabad PAN: ABPFS6108M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Amit Walia, CA Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, CA

Date of hearing 29.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM 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/250/2025-26/1078750092(1), dated 22.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.7510/Del/2025

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 51 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 his purchases amounting to Rs.1,64,89,889/- in AY 2019-20 sourced from M/s. Sh. Daya Shankar, as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 15.03.2024. The CIT(A) in its lower appellate discussion has enhanced the aforesaid bogus purchases to Rs. 2,57,70,880/- and estimated the GP @10%. 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 trading of non-ferrous metal scrap and manufacturing of aluminum ingots all along wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that his

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7510/Del/2025

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. 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. 2,57,70,880/- 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.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.7510/Del/2025

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15th May, 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