RAMA FOOD GRAIN CO,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5024/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 December 2025AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed a lumpsum disallowance of 3% on the alleged bogus purchases, stating it would not be treated as a precedent. The penalty imposed for non-cooperation was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases amounting to Rs. 78,74,673/- from M/s. Rishab Trading Company were treated as bogus by the lower authorities. The assessee also faced a penalty for alleged non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the disallowance of purchases treated as bogus. Another issue was the validity of the penalty imposed for alleged non-cooperation during assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.12.2025Pronounced: 02.12.2025

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 5024/Del/2025 for assessment year 2013-14, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders dated 26.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077862475(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2025-26/1078181316(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We advert to the assessee’s quantum appeal wherein it raises its sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating its purchases amounting to Rs.78,74,673/- sourced from M/s. Rishab Trading Company as bogus under section 69C of the Act, in assessment order dated 25.03.2022 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. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in wholesale and retail grain business all along. And that it’s 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

1.

2 | P a g e 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.

We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 3% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.78,74,673/- 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. The assessee’s former appeal is partly allowed.

More judgments on Section 69C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →