Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in construction business, appealed against the disallowance of Rs.10,70,010/- for alleged bogus purchases sourced from M/s. Sanjay Jain group, treated under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the lower authorities following reassessment proceedings under Section 147.
Held
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's business and that its corresponding sales were not questioned, partly allowed the appeal. It directed a lump sum disallowance of 5% of the disputed bogus purchases, explicitly stating this resolution should not be considered a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the entire disallowance of bogus purchases under Section 69C was justified, or if a proportionate disallowance was more appropriate given the nature of the assessee's business and the fact that corresponding sales were not challenged.
Sections Cited
147, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 23.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER This assesseee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079377888(1), dated 07.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of 21 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee raises his sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating its purchases amounting to Rs.10,70,010/- sourced from M/s. Sanjay Jain group, as bogus under section 69C of the Act, in assessment order dated 20.12.2024 as 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. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in construction business all along wherein possibility of some cash turnover could not be altogether ruled out. 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) 178 taxmann.com 424 (Del. – Trib.) DCIT Vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati
2 | P a g e 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 @ 5% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.10,70,010/- 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. No other ground or argument has been pressed.