SACHIN JINDAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-51(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to prove genuineness and the department's lack of doubt on corresponding sales, decided to restrict the disallowance to a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for bogus purchases. This provided relief of Rs. 12,02,720/- to the assessee, with the condition that this specific resolution would not set a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 challenges the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the disallowance of purchases amounting to Rs. 13,02,720/- as bogus accommodation entries, initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear during the hearing and failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of purchases treated as bogus accommodation entries was justified and to what extent, given the assessee's failure to prove genuineness and the lack of doubt on corresponding sales.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 28.06.2024 in DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066205285(1), 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. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Mr. Bansal vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower appellate authorities have rightly treated the assessee’s purchases of Rs.13,02,720/- as bogus accommodation entries and therefore, the same ought to be confirmed herein as well. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and the Revenue’s vehement arguments.
Sachin Jindal 4. I find in this factual backdrop that neither the assessee has been able to plead and prove all the impugned purchases as genuine ones by filing the relevant supportive evidence nor the department has doubted the corresponding business sale in the books of account.
Faced with this situation, I hereby deem it appropriate to conclude that a lump sum disallowance/addition of the impugned bogus purchases of Rs.1,00,000/- in the given facts and circumstances, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 12,02,720/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
