PANKAJ BHANWARLAL DHADDHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(2)(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO had not disputed the assessee's sales and had relied solely on third-party information without independent verification. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year, the disallowance on purchases was restricted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened based on information about non-genuine purchases from alleged entry providers. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition by disallowing a percentage of purchases from suspicious dealers, despite the assessee providing substantiating details and not having their books of account rejected.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the validity of reopening the assessment based on third-party information and the disallowance of purchases without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The allowability of deduction under Section 80C was also raised but not pressed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi
dated 15.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee has raised
following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening under section 147, which was based only on third-party information without independent application of mind by the AO.
On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of *29,11,627/- as bogus purchases despite evidence of cheque payments, stock records, and sales.
On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions without granting cross-examination of the alleged entry providers, violating principles of natural justice.
On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly disallowed the deduction under section 80C of ₹87,647/- towards LIC premium, which is legally allowable.
5 On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following decision of Hon'ble ITAT in own case in respect of alleged purchases whereas 5% estimated by Hon'ble ITAT.
6 The Assessee reserves his right to amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal.”
Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The
learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee
is individual and engaged in the business of reseller of metal and Nikel alloy in
the name of Kalpataru Nickel Alloys. Case of assessee was reopened on the basis
of information received from Sales Tax Department that assessee is beneficiary
of non-genuine purchases from alleged entry provider. As per information, the
assessee has purchased of Rs. 2.32 crore from suspicion / entry provider. The
Assessing Officer (AO) made addition by disallowing 12.5% of aggregate of
purchases from such alleged such suspicious dealers, despite the fact that
assessee furnished complete details to substantiate purchases. The ld. CIT(A)
upheld the action of AO. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that neither the
books of account was rejected nor sales of assessee was disputed. The sales are
not possible in absence of purchases. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that on
similar set of fact in assesses own case for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 2458/M/2023
dated 26.10.2023, similar disputed purchases were restricted to 5.00%. The ld.
AR of the assessee submits that though the purchases are genuine, yet to avoid
the long drawn litigation, the order of Tribunal in A.Y. 2011-12 (supra) may be 2 followed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he is not pressing other
grounds of appeal which relates to validity of reopening and deduction under
Chapter VIA.
On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR)
for the Revenue submits that AO made addition on the basis of information that
assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchases. The Investigation Wing carried out
full-fledged investigation about the entry provide who is providing only
accommodation entry without actual delivery of goods. The ld. Sr. DR for the
Revenue submits that lower authorities have made reasonable disallowance and
same may be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone
through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that the AO has not
disputed the sale of assessee. The assessee is a trader in Steel and nickel items.
The sale is not possible in absence of purchases. The AO while making addition
solely relied on the information received by him. The AO has not made any
independent verification of facts. We also find that AO while making disallowance
of purchases @ 12.5% from alleged disputed parties have not rejected the books
of account of assessee. On careful perusal of assessment order, order of ld
CIT(A) and order in assesses own case in ITA No. 2458/M/2023 dated
26.10.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12 (supra), we find that issue before us is similar as of
in appeal for AY 2011-12. Therefore, considering the decision of coordinate
bench of tribunal, we direct the AO restrict the disallowance as per the decision in A.Y. 2011-12. In the result, ground No. 2 & 5 are allowed. Further, considering
the facts that the ld. AR of the assessee has is not pressed other grounds of
appeal which relates to validity of reopening and deduction under Chapter VIA,
thus, those grounds of appeal are dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order was pronounced in the open Court on 09/06/2026.
/- Sd/- S/- /- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 09/06/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file.
By Order
Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026