← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aspee Agro Equipment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 589/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 589/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Circle-12(1)(1) M/S Aspee Agro Equipment Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128C, 1St Floor बिाम/ Aspee House, B. J. Patel Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate Malad(W), Mumbai-400 064 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8980-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Brajendra Kumar -Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. P. Purohit -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 23/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 10/10/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 13/03/2014. The Ground Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchases Of Rs.1,52,19,619/- Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Failed To Establish The Genuineness Of The Purchases.

For Appellant: Shri Brajendra Kumar -Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Purohit -Ld. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

revenue read as under: - i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in disallowance on account of bogus purchases of Rs.1,52,19,619/- made by the AO without appreciating the fact that assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases ... that of the Assessing Officer be restored. As evident the revenue is aggrieved by relief provided by Ld. CIT(A) on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Having heard rival submissions and after careful consideration of material on record, our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would

ITO, Ward-1(1), Kalyan vs. M/S Arudaya Chemicals P. Ltd., Ambernath

ITA 2015/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2015/Mum/2020 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Arudaya Chemicals P. Ltd. W-46, Midc, Moriwali Village, Ward-1(1) Vs. Ambernath, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaz, Wayale Maharashtra-421301 Nagar, Klayan (W)-421301 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aadca3393A प्रत्याऺेप सM./ Co No. 121/Mum/2021 (Arising In Ita No. 2015/Mum/2020 For Ay 2010-11) M/S Arudaya Chemicals P. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer W-46, Midc, Moriwali Village, Ward-1(1) Vs. Ambernath, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaz, Wayale Maharashtra-421301 Nagar, Klayan (W)-421301 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Cross Appeals Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-2, Thane [In Short Cit(A)], In Ita No. 10636/2015-16 Vide Dated 28.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mumbai (In Short Ito / Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order

For Appellant: Smt. Smita Verma, DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

only common issue in these cross appeals is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in restricting the addition of bogus purchases by estimating the profit rate at 12.5 % of the bogus purchases as against addition made by Assessing Officer at 100%. 3. I have heard the rival contentions ... assessee and held that the purchase made with the above mentioned hawala parties were non genuine and hence, he added the entire bogus purchases of ₹3,17,304/-. The assessee preferred the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance at 25% of the bogus

Shri Omprakash Hukmaram Vishnoi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2005/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2005/Mum/2020 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Shri Omprakash Hukmaram The Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), Vishnoi Matru Mandir, Tardeo, R.No. 29, 4Th Floor, 47/51, Kika Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Street, Gulalwadi, Mumbai-400 004 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aefpv5930D अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-54, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-30/It-933/ Ito 19(2)(4) 2016-17 Vide Dated 14.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 21.01.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Delayed By 479 Days. The Date Of Receipt Of Order Of Cit(A) Was 20.06.2019 & The Appeal Was Filed In Tribunal On 14.12.2020. The Details Given By Assessee Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of ₹14,79,640/- on account of alleged bogus purchases i.e. 12.50 minus existing GP.” 7. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I noted that ... there was delay in filing appeal which was condoned by Hon’ble ITAT. Therefore, we are agreed for addition for 5% of alleged bogus purchases in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” 9. Since, the facts and circumstances are exactly identical from earlier years and now assessee agreed

Shreeji Traders, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2008/Mum/2020 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Shreeji Traders The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 Lic Building Near Canara Bank Vs. Thane Karnik Road, Kalyan0421301 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaefs4020J अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Pune [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A), Pune-11/10176/2015-16 Vide Dated 20.08.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thane (In Short Dcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 02.02.2015 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing, None Was Present From Assessee. As Seen The Nature Of Additions Made & Grounds Of Appeal Raised, The Matter Is Heard.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

procured bills and made purchases from grey market for gaining some profit. Hence, I estimate the profit at the rate of 12.5 % of the bogus purchases of ₹77,832/- . I direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases accordingly. 3 Shreeji Traders

ITO - 27(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Globond India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1995/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1995/Mum/2020 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, M/S Globond India B-306, Kailash Esplanade 4, Ward-27(1)(5) Vs. Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai Mumbai-400 086 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aagfg1959A अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : None स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-25, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A) -25/It/84/2015-16/491, Vide Dated 22.01.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(5), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 18.03.2015 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing, None Was Present From Assessee. As Seen The Nature Of Additions & The Ground Raised, The Matter Is Heard.

For Appellant: Smt. Smita Verma, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 37(1)Section 69C

issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition by applying the profit rate at 12.5% of bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the following two grounds: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,48,290/- as against addition of Rs.15,03,624/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus to establish the genuineness of the transactions and also failed

ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Lashkaria Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 553/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.553/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit – 12(3)(2) M/S Lashkaria Construction Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128H, 1St Floor बिाम 102, Diamond Apartment, Link Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400 102 / Vs. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacl-6508-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 28/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 28/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [Ay] 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 15/10/2019 Which Has Deleted The Penalty Of Rs.18,05,912/- U/S 271(1)(C) As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Penalty Order Dated 30/03/2017. Though None Appeared For Assessee, However, The Material On Record Was Sufficient Enough For Disposal Of The Appeal. The Ld. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of The Penalty.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

leading to imposition of penalty are that in an assessment framed u/s 143(3) on 11/03/2014, the assessee was saddled with addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.584.43 Lacs. Upon further appeal, the quantum was estimated @10% and the additions were restricted to Rs.58.44 Lacs. Consequently, penalty of Rs.18.05 Lacs

ITO 22(1)(7), Mumbai vs. M/S Furniture Craft, Navi Mumbai

ITA 512/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 512/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-22(1)(7), Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Furniture Craft D/83, Ttc Industrial Estate, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan: Aabff2257R ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] ' Dated 15.11.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Trading Of Furniture. The Assessment For Ay

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the dealers and the purchases made from them, the AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Against the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before ... Appeal No. 413 of 2017 decided on 15.07.2019). Therefore, in my considered view, the AO has erred in making addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) after examining the facts in a fair and justified manner has restricted the disallowance on bogus purchases to 25%. I find

ITO 27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip G Kachhara, Mumbai

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 494/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 494/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-27(1)(4), Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dilip G. Kachhara, Bhairav Enterprises, 1, Kanta Smruti, Near Hotel Airways, Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aabpk2046H ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] ' Dated 23.10.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Of Building Material. On The Basis Of Information Received

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the dealer and the purchases made from the said dealer. The AO estimated GP @ 25% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 80,700/-. Against the assessment order dated 19.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section ... filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts granted part relief to the assessee by estimating GP @ 10% on bogus purchases. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 3. Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently supported the assessment

ITO Ward 6 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jtcls Appliances Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 492/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 492/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं. 493/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11) Ito-6(3)(3), Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jtcls Appliances Pvt. Ltd. 210, 2Nd Floor, Regal Arcade, Behind Roxy Cinema, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aabcj5606P ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: These Two Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 & 2010-11, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 24.10.2019. Since, The Grounds

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee was re-opened on the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai. As per the information received, the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from following parties during the period relevant to AY under appeal. Sr. Name of the purchase party Amount (Rs.) 1 Prajwal Sales Corporation ... आअसं. 492 & 493/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10 & 2010-11) ITA No. 492 & 493/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) restricted the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5%. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against relief granted by the CIT(A). 3. Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently