JAI PARKASH YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(3), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7678/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, considering the peculiar facts of the case and the fact that the corresponding sales were not questioned, deemed it appropriate to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.28,64,000/- in the interest of justice. This decision comes with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of melting aluminum scrap, challenged the disallowance of purchases amounting to Rs.28,64,000/- sourced from M/s. Maruti Enterprises. The lower authorities treated these purchases as bogus under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities were justified in treating purchases as bogus under Section 69C and imposing a full disallowance, or if a partial, lumpsum disallowance is warranted given that corresponding sales were not disputed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69C

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

Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Date of hearing 23.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, 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/250/2025-26/1081127573(1), dated 24.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

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.28,64,000/- sourced from M/s. Maruti Enterprises, as bogus under section 69C of the Act, in assessment order dated 17.03.2022 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 the business of melting of aluminum scarp to manufacture aluminum ingots, all along wherein possibility of some cash sales/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.

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.28,64,000/- 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →