KAILASH KUMAR KUKREJA PROPRIETOR,DELHI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4745/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 65,373.65. This disallowance was not to be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the lower authorities' action of treating purchases of Rs. 13,07,473/- as bogus. The assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries through bogus billing schemes.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases sourced from certain individuals were bogus and liable for disallowance. The issue of divergent judicial views on bogus purchases was also noted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 02.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4745/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kailash Kumar Kukreja Vs. The Assessment Unit Proprietor Income Tax Department 1/507, IInd Floor, Ganda Nala Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 PAN: AJRPK4729J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.06.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085772658(1), dated 09.02.2026, involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

ITA No. 4745/Del/2026 Kailash Kumar Kukreja Proprietor 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 its purchases of Rs.13,07,473/- in AY 2020-21, sourced from Shri Sourabh Gupta and Shri Akash Khari as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 18.03.2025, and 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. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries through bogus billing schemes, where they used multiple shell entities to issue fraudulent invoices, dummy entities, e-way bills and transport invoices all which were fabricated to simulate legitimate business activity. 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)

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 4745/Del/2026 Kailash Kumar Kukreja Proprietor 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 a lumpsum disallowance @ 5% GP of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 13,07,473/-, 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 2nd June, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.06.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 3 | 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 →