SANJAY KUMAR JAIN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL), MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4654/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain, Vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central), Mandi Maulganj, Nagina Bijnor S.O. (Bijnor), Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh PAN: ADDPK2396R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rattan Lal, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 01.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Lucknow-3 order dated 26.02.2026, having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086587377(1), dated 26.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 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 has raised his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the

ITA No.4654/Del/2026

learned lower authorities’ action treating its purchases of Rs.38,10,259/- in AY 2019-20, sourced from M/s Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills entity as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 26.02.2026, and the CIT(A) in the lower appellate discussion sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.2,73,478/-, representing 8% of unaccounted purchases of Rs. Rs.34,18,468/-. 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 engaged in the business of retail trading of grocery items all along wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that his corresponding sales have nowhere been questioned in both the lower proceedings. Various 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

2 | P a g e

ITA No.4654/Del/2026

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 @ 3% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 34,18,468/-, 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) 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