AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, the “CIT(A)”) Noida’s DIN & Order No. CIT(A) Kanpur-4/10685/2018-19 dated 25.01.2019, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the Revenue/appellant is aggrieved against the CIT(A) detailed lower appellate discussion partly restricting the Assessing Officers’ findings disallowing the assessee entire alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 2,13,04,774/- to that @12.5% in question only.
Both the parties, vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in favour of the CIT(A) action partly disallowing the assessee’s alleged bogus purchase @ 12.5%. We make it clear that neither the learned Assessing Officer had disputed the assessee’s corresponding sales nor its regular business activity in the assessment order in question. That being the case, 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 views as well.
We accordingly are of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion restricting the impugned alleged bogus purchases disallowance to that @ 12.5% only in prinicple. The same stands confirmed with a rider that our instant adjudication shall not prejudice the assessee’s rights to independently challenge the CIT(A) action as per law, if so advised.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.