GSS PIZZA CIRCLE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 6316/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves GSS Pizza Circle Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC), which upheld a disallowance of 8% on alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.4,24,32,456. The tribunal, after considering the arguments of the departmental representative and the absence of the assessee's evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, decided to reduce the disallowance to 5%. The tribunal referenced several recent judicial precedents that have dealt with similar issues of bogus purchases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789678 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhamelia vs. ACIT, PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd., PCIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd, DCIT Vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd., DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6316/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 GSS Pizza Circle Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 27, Upper Ground Floor, Road No. 44, Sagar Plaza-2, BLK-UG Rani Bagh Community Centre, Pitampura, Delhi Vs. NFAC, Delhi PAN: AAFCG0515L (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This assessees’ 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/250/2025-26/1076196617(1), dated 14.05.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6316/Del/2025 2 | P a g e 2. Learned departmental representative next vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases @ 8% of Rs.4,24,32,456/-; coming to Rs.33,94,596/- under section 69C in assessment order dated 15.04.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. He accordingly prays that the same ought to be confirmed as the assessee had failed to prove the said purchases as genuine ones by filing its cogent supportive evidence. 3. This tribunal has given its thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective stands. Suffice to say, it is noticed from a perusal of the case records that no fault could be found in the learned lower authorities’ respective findings in principle since the assessee had failed to prove its purchases herein as genuine by way of relevant supportive evidence. There would be further no dispute that 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6316/Del/2025 3 | P a g e 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. It is thus deemed appropriate in the given facts that a lumpsum disallowance @ 5% of the assessee’s impugned bogus purchases would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. This is assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2025 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24th November, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "