AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10821198894(1) dated 29.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “ the Act”).
Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 58 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in lig ht of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges during the cour se of hearing that the assessee raises his sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authoritie s’ action treating it’s purchases amo unting to Rs.7 ,78,882/- from M/s Anupam Enterpr ises and Rs.10,35,408/- from M/s Bhagwat i Enterprises, as bogus in assessment orde r dated 25.09 .2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, bo th the parties vehemently reiterate the ir respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. I wish to make it clear that there is no disp ute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the b usine ss of manufacturing of cattle feed all along wherein possib ility of some cash turnover could not be altogether ruled out. And that his corresponding sales have nowhere been questioned in both the lower proceedings. Various recent judicial precedents (2025) 173 taxmann.co m 592 (Guj.) Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhamelia vs. ACIT; (2024) 160 taxmann.co m 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) PC IT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd; (2025) 178 taxmann.com 424 (Del. – Trib.) DCIT Vs. Kohinoo r Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DC IT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have decided the instant issue of bogus purchases w ith divergent view s as well.
Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum disallowance @ 6% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.18,14 ,290/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall fo llow as per law.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.