RAJ KUMAR GARG,BHIWANI vs. ITO WARD-1 BHIWANI, BHIWANI
Facts
The assessee filed an income tax return for AY 2021-22, declaring INR 40,59,913/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income at INR 1,49,51,160/-, making an addition of 25% on alleged bogus purchases totaling INR 4,35,65,000/-. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, sustaining the addition.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not invoke Section 145(3) and found the 25% profit estimation to be excessive and not comparable. It directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 10% on the alleged bogus purchases and treat this income as 'Income from Business or Profession', allowing all grounds raised by the assessee partly.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made for alleged bogus purchases were justified and whether the quantum of disallowance was appropriate, along with procedural issues regarding opportunity of hearing and validity of notices.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI A BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ITA No.4364/Del/2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4364/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2021-22] Raj Kumar Garg vs ITO Gali Nai Kalan Bichla Bazar Ward-1 Bhiwani, Haryana-127021 Bhiwani PAN-ABTPG0505A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Deepam Jain, Adv. Respondent by Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 15.05.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10199691 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 23.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 04.12.2021, declaring total income at INR 40,59,913/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) followed by notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. In response, assessee filed requisite details. Finally, the AO
ITA No.4364/Del/2025
assessed the income of the assessee at INR 1,49,51,160/- vide assessment order dated 23.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 15.05.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. AO had erred in law in issuing a vague, perfunctory, and invalid notice u/s 143(2) wherein no reason or particulars related to proceedings were provided and no specific information was called for from the appellant; thereby rendering it a mere formality violating the provisions of law which vitiated the jurisdiction and proceedings ab initio. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law in sustaining additions made by Ld. AO of Rs. 1,08,91,250/- being 25% of the impugned purchases of Rs. 4,35,65,000/- alleging it as bogus merely for alleged non-compliance of notice u/s 133(6) by the concerned sellers which is unjustified and liable to be quashed. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that mere non- production of vendors via video conference cannot, in isolation, justify treating genuine purchases as bogus and no adverse inference should be drawn in the absence of any material contradiction in the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant; as such the addition is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the additions of Rs. 1,08,91,250/-in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, without appreciating that the Ld. AO had not brought any adverse material on record to refute the evidences submitted by the appellant; hence, the addition is solely based on surmises and conjectures which is liable to be deleted. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,08,91,250/- (25% of purchases amounting to Rs. 4,35,65,000/-) even though the Ld. AO did not reject the
ITA No.4364/Del/2025
audited books of account and in the absence of such rejection, no disallowance of purchases can be made, particularly when corresponding sales and closing stock were accepted, hence, the order passed by Ld. AO is required to be quashed and the impugned additions are required to be deleted. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO ignoring the fact that the obligation to file income tax returns lies with the selling parties, and any default on their part do not warrants assumption of genuine purchases as bogus; hence, the additions are illegal and liable to be deleted. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining additions of Rs. 1,08,91,250/- which is unjustified as such addition solely based on assumptions and not supported by any cogent evidence; hence, the addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the disallowance of purchases @ 25% is quite arbitrary, irrational and excessive in nature particularly when the profit on such purchases had already embedded in the gross profit declared under the audited books, hence, the disallowance on estimation basis is vague, unjustified and unreasonable which is liable to be deleted. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in dismissing the appeal without affording a proper opportunity of hearing particularly through video conferencing as requested by the appellant which is in violation of principles of natural justice and Faceless Appeals Scheme as such the appellate order is vitiated and liable to be quashed. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act which is unwarranted and liable to be deleted. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or rescind any ground/grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. In view of the eleven mentioned grounds, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed and additions made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,08,91,250/- illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind in utter violation of facts and law may kindly be quashed/set aside.”
Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, AO has made the addition @ 25% of the purchases made of INR 4,35,65,000/- alleged as bogus
ITA No.4364/Del/2025
which is sustained by Ld. CIT(A) by observing that purchases remained unverifiable and assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions. It is observed that the profit declared by the assessee is less than the income estimated by the AO @ 25% of the bogus purchases. Thus, looking to the entirety of the facts and after considering the submissions, we find that AO has not invoked the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. We further observed that profit estimated @ 25% is found to be excessive and not comparable with any entity involving in the same line of trade. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate that estimation of G.P @10% in the peculiar facts of the case, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent. Thus, we direct the AO to apply profit rate of 10% on the purchases alleged as bogus and further directed to treat this income as Income from Business or Profession. With these directions, all grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 29.01.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*
ITA No.4364/Del/2025
