ANKUR KUMAR GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2725/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 3.5 lakhs for bogus purchases would be just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent. The penalty appeal was also allowed based on the principle that such issues do not typically result in concealment of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2012-13 pertained to disallowance of purchases and a penalty levied. The lower authorities disallowed entire purchases of Rs. 34,54,339/- as bogus, and a penalty of Rs. 10,17,970/- was imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire purchases could be disallowed as bogus, and whether the penalty levied for bogus purchases was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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: Shri Rajat Garg, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.10.2025Pronounced: 06.10.2025

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals & 2726/Del/2025 for A.Y.

2012-13, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s as many DINs & Order Nos.

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067146872(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067145147(1), both dated 30.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 & 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed his entire purchases of Rs. 34,54,339/- as bogus, in assessment framed on 29.11.2019, as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s sales figure in his books of account in regular business activity have been duly reflected and accepted in both the lower proceedings. The fact also remains that the assessee also could not plead and prove the impugned purchases as genuine all along in the lower proceedings. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum disallowance of bogus purchases of Rs. 3.5 lakhs only 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 instant former appeal ITA 2725/Del/2025 is partly allowed.

3.

Next comes the asessee’s penalty appeal in AY 2012-13. There is no dispute between the parties that the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,17,970/- involves quantum issue of bogus purchases which requires supportive appreciation of the entire supporting evidence in quantum proceedings. That being the case, I hereby quote CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) that such an issue would hardly result in an instance of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof to delete the impugned penalty levied by both the learned lower authorities. The assessee’s instant latter succeeds therefore. allowed and his latter appeal is allowed, in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in open court on 06.10.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →