SHAGUN GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7143/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2019-20Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's corresponding business sales were not disputed, and books of accounts were not rejected. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to a lump sum of 5% of the impugned bogus purchases, specifying that this decision should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's claim of Rs. 23,45,100/- for purchases from M/s Kamal Enterprises was disallowed by the lower authorities, treating them as bogus purchases. This disallowance was made in proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2019-20.

What were the issues?

Whether the complete disallowance of Rs. 23,45,100/- for bogus purchases, made under Section 147, was justified, especially when corresponding sales and books of accounts were not disputed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080482131(1) dated 09.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s claim of Rs.23,45,100/- as his bogus purchases sourced from Mr. Nitin, prop. of M/s Kamal Enterprises, in assessment order dated 19.02.2025, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

1.

Shagun Goel 4. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s corresponding business sales have nowhere been disputed and his books of accounts maintained all along have also not been rejected. The fact also remains that it was the assessee’s bounden duty only to plead and prove his impugned purchases u/s 37 of the Act as wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum disallowance @5% of the impugned bogus purchases 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →