AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection ITA No.3089/Del/2024 and C.O. No. 5/Del/2025 for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 18.01.2024 having DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059898237(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Delay of 10 days in filing of the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the assessee’s bogus purchases of Rs.5,43,64641/- u/s 69C sourced from M/s. Raghvendra Apparel Pvt. Ltd. as no substantial documents/bills have been brought on record regarding the above bogus purchases.
That being the clinching factual position, learned counsel appearing for both the parties could hardly dispute that various judicial precedents (2025) 173 taxmann.com 592 (Guj.) Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhamelia vs. ACIT; (2024) 160 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd.; (2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd; (2025) 178 taxmann.com 424 (Del. – Trib.) DCIT Vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent opinions i.e. allowing or disallowing the same or in part based on facts as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 3% of assessee’s bogus purchases of Rs.5,43,64641/-, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. This is more particularly for the reason that there is no issue qua its turnover and sales revealed all along, as the case may be. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
Mr. Kapoor does not press for the assessee’s C.O. No. 5/Del/2025. Rejected accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.5/Del/2025 is dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.