MURLI RAM MEENA, INCOME TAX vs. MOHINDER KUMAR, PRASHANT VIHAR DELHI

The instant batch of three cases pertains to the single assessee herein Sh. Mohinder Kumar. The Revenue and the assessee filed their respective appeals and C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 for assessment year 2021-22 against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal & 1652/Del/2024 C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 28.12.2023 having DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059129244(1). The Revenue’s latter appeal CIT(A)/NFAC’s order dated 28.12.2023 having DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059155281(1) in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

Delays of 989 days and 44 days in filing Revenue’s appeals 1652/Del/2024, respectively, are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that their arises the first and foremost identical issue in all the three instant cases regarding the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases disallowance(s) of Rs.23,14,75,540/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs.34,99,98,506/- in AY 2021-22, respectively. There is further no quarrel that the Revenue’s endeavour herein is to revive both these impugned disallowances in the twin assessment years herein made & 1652/Del/2024 C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 by the Assessing Officer in entirety involving 10 parties in assessment year 2018-19 and @ 25% in assessment year 2021-22; respectively.

Both the learned representatives invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s twin assessments framed on 29th May, 2021 (pages 45 to 53) and 29th December, 2022 (pages 699 to 712) in AYs 2018-19 and 2021-22; respectively, involving identical discussion, inter alia, holding that although the assessee filed all the documentary evidences regarding its suppliers’ corresponding details; the Assessing Officer referred to the Press Information Bureau report and lack of their returns etc. to reject his purchases’ deduction claims herein. Coming to the learned CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion, he has restricted the same to the extent of the assessee’s NP @ 0.65 % going by the corresponding figures in assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2019-20; as the case may be, to partly uphold the Assessing Officer’s findings. It is in this factual backdrop that both the parties have filed their respective appeals and cross objection; as the case may be, before the tribunal.