AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083217935(1) dated 02.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the asse ssee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in restricting the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the assessee’s entire bogus purchases of Rs.36,07,392/- sourced from M/s Soni Textiles to the extent of 15% thereof only in the impugned lower appellate discussion.
That being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that var ious recent jud icial precedents (2025) 173 taxmann.com 592 (Guj.) Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhame lia vs. AC IT; (2024) 160 taxmann.co m 110 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sale s (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.co m 836 (Delhi- trib.) DCIT Vs. Tir upati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well. I thus find no illegality or irregularity in the CIT(A)/ NFAC’s lower appellate discussion restricting the impugned bogus purchase disallowance only to the extent of 15% in very terms. Rejected accord ingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.