Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is engaged in civil construction business and sourced purchases from unregistered dealers, which were treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The assessee's sole substantive ground of appeal challenges the disallowance of purchases amounting to Rs. 13,78,35,068/- for AY 2020-21.
Held
While acknowledging the possibility of sourcing from unregistered dealers and that the assessee's sales were not questioned, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's book entries to the extent of the disputed purchases. A lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed just and proper.
Key Issues
Whether purchases sourced from unregistered dealers, treated as bogus by lower authorities, warrant a disallowance and at what rate.
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3), 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFARU RAHMAN
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1071628815(1), dated 27.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his purchases amounting to Rs.13,78,35,068/- in AY 2020-21 sourced from M/s. Sanjay Jain & Mehta group, as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 23.03.2023, and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in civil construction business all along wherein possibility of assessee sourcing its purchases from unregistered dealers per se could not be altogether ruled out as well. And that his 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)
2 | P a g e 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.
Faced with these peculiar facts, 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.13,78,35,068/-, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee’s book entries are hereby rejected to the very extent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed.