SANDEEP GARG,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7630/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent for future cases.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases amounting to Rs. 35,91,856/- from M/s. Sony Textiles were treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The assessee is engaged in the fabric business, and their corresponding sales were not questioned.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the purchases treated as bogus by the revenue authorities were indeed so, and the quantum of disallowance to be made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv
Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Sandeep Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sandeep International D.M. Ward-1, School Gali, Des Raj Colony, Panipat Panipat, Haryana PAN: AHNPG9176H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. Department by Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2025-26/1082449345(1), dated 10.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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.35,91,856/- sourced from M/s. Sony Textiles Prop: Ms. Sonia, as bogus under section 69C of the Act, in assessment order dated 10.03.2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

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 fabric business all along wherein possibility of cash sales/turnover could not be altogether rules 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 Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well.

4.

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.35,91,856/- 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.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →