INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANIPAT vs. SHIVALIK FABRICS, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1469/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 April 20263 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged divergent judicial views on bogus purchases and decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision was explicitly stated not to be a precedent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which had revised the Assessing Officer's disallowance of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee's purchases from M/s Sidhi Vinayak Textiles were questioned.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in revising the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. The tribunal considered various judicial precedents on this matter.

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: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv
Hearing: 06.04.2026Pronounced: 06.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1469/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO Vs. Shivalik Fabrics Ward-1 101-102, Near PNB Bank, S D Room No.- 203, Ayakar College Road, Panipat- Bhawan, Sector-6, HUDA, 132103, Haryana Panipat-132103 Haryana PAN: ABCFS2494R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 ORDER

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2025-26/1084652232(1), dated 12.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.1469/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in revising the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 45,09,600/- @ 12.5% sourced from M/s Sidhi Vinayak Textiles. 3. That being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that 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. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 6% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 45,09,600/-, would be just and proper with a

2 | P a g e

ITA No.1469/Del/2026

rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary

computation shall follow as per law.

4.

This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th April, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16th April, 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →