VINOD KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1311/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 April 2026AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings. It was noted that M/s Swastik Traders was engaged in providing bogus purchase entries of agricultural produce.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed sales of agricultural produce amounting to Rs. 15,87,040 to M/s Swastik Traders. The Assessing Officer treated these sales as bogus and made an addition. The assessee argued that the addition was made without an opportunity for cross-examination.

What were the issues?

Whether the sales of agricultural produce were genuine or bogus, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity for cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.04.2026Pronounced: 06.04.2026

PAN: ACGPK1326B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CA Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 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 order dated 11.12.2025, passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083556292(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case filed perused.

2.

It is noticed at the outset that the assessee/appellant appears to be aggrieved against both the learned authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating his alleged sales of agricultural produce etc., made to M/s Swastik Traders the tune of Rs. 15,87,040/-, as bogus price in nature.

3. Learned counsel submits that the assessee/appellant undisputedly owns and possesses 21 hectares of agricultural land whose revenue records have been duly verified and allowed. His further case is that impugned addition of bogus sales to M/s Swastik Traders has been made without affording him opportunity of cross-examination despite the fact that he had all along filed the corresponding details of agricultural produce as well as sales made to the said surveyed party.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. I find no reason to interfere with the same. It is made clear that both the learned lower authorities’ 2 | P a g e corresponding detailed assessment and lower appellate’ discussions have made it clear as to in what manner the assessee’s payer; M/s Swastik Traders, had been engaged in providing such bogus purchases entries of agricultural produce. That being the case, I hereby uphold the impugned addition made in the assessee’s case in very terms.

4.

The assessee’s case is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06th April, 2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →