Dimpi Batra vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082420940(1), dated 10.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Delay of 100 days in filing of the assessee’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).

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his purchases of Rs.11,65,000/- sourced from M/s. Bhagwati Enterprises as bogus ones under section 69A of the Act and Rs.58,250/- as undisclosed expenses towards commission; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned purchases as bogus one.

I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of mobile accessories, like chargers, mobile LCD etc., all along where possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that its corresponding receipts and sales therefrom have also not been questioned in both the lower proceedings. 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 decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views i.e. both accepting or partly allowing or rejecting the same in entirety; as the case may be.

Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 5% of the assessee’s alleged bogus sales/purchases amounting to Rs.11,65,000/- in 2018-19, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The same shall also take care of alleged commission expenditure of Rs.58,250/- as well. The assessee’s book entries to this effect are hereby rejected to the very extent. Necessary computation(s) shall follow as per law.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.