HARSH GUPTA,PANIPAT HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANIPAT, HARYANA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAssessment Year: 2019-20
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 4803/Del/2025 for assessment year
2019-20 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 13.06.2025 (DIN &
Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10770014104(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. Case file perused.
2. The tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case record that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s purchases in garments and other allied business; totaling to Rs. 40,12,083/- as bogus ones, in assessment order dated 12.01.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate proceedings.
2
Harsh Gupta v. ITO
It is in this factual background that the assessee’s learned counsel vehemently argues that both the lower authorities could not have disallowed the impugned purchases; more particularly, when they have not disturbed the corresponding sales figures declared in the duly audited book results. This clinching fact has indeed gone unrebutted from the Revenue’s side. The fact, however, remains that both the lower authorities have referred to corresponding detailed evidence(s) against the assessee whilst disallowing these purchases. It is, thus deemed appropriate to observe in these peculiar facts that the impugned entire purchase disallowance could not be upheld in principle. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum disallowance of the impugned bogus purchases @ 10% representing the gross profit component therein 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. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 22.09.2025. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 29.09.2025. *MP*