AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, 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/250/2025-26/1083070150(1), dated 27.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee raises his sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his purchases amounting to Rs.29,81,10,071/- and Rs.26,72,12,520/-, aggregating to Rs.56,53,22,591/- sourced from Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Rs.12,56,31,271/-), Sh. Sandeep Edward Lawrence (Rs.7,85,87,300/-) and Sh. Aman Tyagi (Rs.9,38,91,500/-) and Ms. Soniya (Rs.26,72,12,520/-) in assessment year 2021-22; as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in assessment order dated 28.02.2024 which stand upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in gold and silver bullion wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. And that his 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 @ 1% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.56,53,22,591/- in AY 2021-22, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 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.