AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos. 1277 to 1280/Del/2026 for assessment year 2017-18 to 2020-21, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi orders, all dated 23.12.2025, passed in case nos. CIT(A), Delhi-30/10499/2016-17, 10315/2017-18, 10541/2018-19 and 10695/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) 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 presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his purchases amounting to Rs.21,61,565/- in AY 2017-18; Rs.4,45,66,490/- in AY 2018-19; Rs.21,73,67,674/- in AY 2019-20 and Rs.43,21,475/-in AY 2020-21 sourced from M/s. Sanjay Jain (Jain Cement Udyog), Mahaveer Associates and Forever Exim India Pvt. Ltd., as bogus one under section 69C of the Act, in the respective assessment orders, as 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 a civil Contractor & Engineer, engaged in diverse segment such as roads, power, building projects, irrigation and water supply, utilities and urban infrastructure, pan India all along wherein possibility of assessee sourcing his purchases from unregistered dealers per se could not be altogether ruled out as well. 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.
Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that NP of the impugned purchases @ 4.35% of Rs.21,61,565/-; 4.09% of Rs.4,45,66,490/-; 3.50% of Rs.21,73,67,674/- and 3.60% of Rs.43,21,475/- in AYs 2017-18 to 2020-21; respectively, going by the accepted profit rate, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee’s book entries are hereby rejected to the limited extent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.
These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.1277 to 1280/Del/2026 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.