INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. ADVERMARK WIRESMITH PVT LTD, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3390/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue involving the same supplier for the preceding assessment year was restricted to 5%. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to the extent of 5% of the disallowed amount.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order concerning assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had disallowed alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 85,59,864/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the Assessing Officer was justified, and if so, to what extent, considering the decision in the preceding assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Adv
Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 16.04.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2024-25/1074956811(1), dated 24.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144

ITA No.3390/Del/2025 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/appellant behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

We next advert to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground raised here seeking to revive assessee’s alleged bogus purchase disallowance amounting to Rs. 85,59,864/- made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 22.05.2023 as reversed in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, we hereby notice that the very issue of alleged bogus purchases involving identical supplier M/s R.K Enterprises had come up for adjudication in the preceding assessment year 2016-17 in the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 3389/Del/2025 wherein the same stands restricted @ 5 % only. We thus adopt judicial consistency in absence of any distinction in law or on facts to partly accept the Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground to the extent of 5% only in above terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3390/Del/2025 4. This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.04.2026 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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →