DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7844/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 March 2026AY 2024-2576 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for the remaining disallowance of ₹13,52,382, where the parties concerned (Smt. Payal Agarwal and Shri Mohit Jain) had not filed responses to Section 133(6) notices or their income tax returns, a lump sum disallowance at the rate of 5% of the impugned purchases would be just and proper, with the rider that it shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee's appeal on this issue was partly allowed. Regarding the Section 69A addition of ₹40,18,132, the Tribunal found that the assessee had duly proved these receipts as income from ticket sales from public on various events and had filed all relevant details. Therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition, and the Revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed. The Tribunal expressly noted that no other ground or argument was pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, for assessment years 2018-19 to 2024-25. These appeals arose from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed purchases of ₹8,86,36,574 for AY 2018-19 under Section 37(1), treating them as bogus. An addition of ₹40,18,132 under Section 69A for unexplained money was also made. The CIT(A) partly upheld the purchase disallowance to the extent of ₹13,52,382, granting relief of ₹8,72,84,192, and deleted the Section 69A addition entirely. The assessee sought to delete the remaining disallowance, while the Revenue sought to uphold it and reinstate the Section 69A addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the disallowance of purchase expenses amounting to ₹13,52,382, confirmed by the CIT(A), was justified. The assessee argued that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of retracted statements, especially when payments were made through banking channels and the company's books of account were not rejected. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions for parties who did not respond to Section 133(6) notices or file ITRs, as this should not lead to an adverse inference. The Revenue argued for upholding the disallowance in entirety. 2. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the deletion of the Section 69A addition of ₹40,18,132 by the CIT(A) was justified. The Revenue contended that the AO rightly made this addition, which was wrongly deleted by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as there was no evidence to justify it, and the receipts were duly proved as income from ticket sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1),Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 132,Section 133(6),Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocates
For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 24.02.2026Pronounced: 20.03.2026

PER BENCH

These assessee’s and the Revenue’s seven cross-appeals each i.e, ITA Nos.5515 to 5521/Del/2025 and ITA Nos.7838_ to 7844/Del/2025 for assessment years 2018-19 to 2024-25, arise against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi orders; all dated 1%* September, 2025, in proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), as the case may be, respectively.

2.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others

3.

We ad

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →