AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.03.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Delhi-44 Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Gurgaon-1/10102/2016-17 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 23.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3)/144C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20.
Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. Similar and identical issues have been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA Nos. 873 & 877/Del/2025 in assessee’s own case for AYs 2020-21 & 2021-22 vide order dated 05.01.2026 where the Co-ordinate Bench has decided the issue partly in favour of the assessee with a rider of disallowance @ 6% on the alleged bogus purchases. The relevant operative paras of the order are reproduced as under:-
3.“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 construction business all along wherein possibility 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.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.
4.Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance @ 6% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.3,40,17,291 in AY 2020-21 and Rs.23,79,987/- in AY 2021-22 would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computations shall follow as per law.”
Before us, both the parties fairly admitted to follow the order of the Co-ordinate bench. Thus, in view of these facts and by respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra) and in the larger interest of justice, a lumpsum disallowance @ 6% of the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases amounting to INR 1,66,38,555/- in AY 2019-20 would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computations shall follow as per law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.