Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 challenged an order concerning proceedings u/s 147. The core issue was the treating of a purchase transaction of Rs. 75,75,000/- as bogus. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee is in the business of constructing apartments and cash turnover in such unorganized sectors is possible, the specific purchase transaction was questioned. Considering various judicial precedents with divergent views, the Tribunal decided to allow a lump sum disallowance.
Key Issues
Whether the purchase transaction of Rs. 75,75,000/- sourced from M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company was correctly treated as bogus, and if so, what should be the disallowance amount.
Sections Cited
147, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s order dated 16.08.2025 in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10257/2012-13, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee raises it’s sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating purchase transaction amounting to Rs.75,75,000/- sourced from M/s. Bhagwati
MR Proview Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. Trading company Prop. Sh. Sanjiv Yadav, as bogus ones under section 68 of the Act, in assessment order dated 29.05.2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in construction of multistoried residential apartments all along wherein possibility of it’s cash turnover in such an unorganized sector involving multiple segments could not be altogether ruled out. And that it’s corresponding sales have nowhere been questioned in both the lower proceedings. 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 already decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well.
Faced with these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum disallowance @
MR Proview Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. 10% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases of Rs.75,75,000/-; coming to Rs.7,57,500/-, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.