Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order confirming the addition of the gross profit component of purchases treated as bogus. The lower authorities had assessed the gross profit at 25% on these purchases.
Held
The Tribunal found that the disallowance of 25% was exorbitantly high. The Tribunal restricted the impugned disallowance to 5% of the purchase value, with a rider that this decision would not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of 25% on the gross profit component of purchases treated as bogus was justified, or if a lower rate should be applied.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nasik [DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1077256934(1)], in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities herein have treated the assessee’s purchases from M/s Gauri Traders as bogus ones, and, thereafter assessed the same qua the gross profit component only @ 25%; coming to Rs. 14,70,175 in assessment order dated 18.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
M/s Sarveshwar Commodities India P Ltd. 3. That being the case, learned counsel’s first and foremost vehement contention is that the impugned purchases would not have been disallowed at the rate of 25% but having regard to the corresponding book result declared all along. Leaned DR could further not dispute that the impugned disallowance @ 25% is too high i.e. exorbitantly made than in light of the asessee’s corresponding book results.
Be that as it may, it is thus deemed proper in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned disallowance from 25% in question to that @ 5% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
All other pleadings have rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 22.09.2025.