SCK INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

ITA 1087/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves SCK Infratech Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2020-21. The primary issue was the treatment of purchases amounting to Rs.13,78,35,068 from M/s. Sanjay Jain & Mehta group, which were deemed bogus under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal noted that while the assessee is engaged in the civil construction business, the possibility of sourcing purchases from unregistered dealers could not be entirely ruled out. The tribunal decided to disallow a lumpsum amount of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases, citing various judicial precedents that have dealt with similar issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827765 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2025
• 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: AMISH S. GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: P RIYANKA JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFARU RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1087/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 SCK Infratech Pvt. Ltd., C/o- G.K. Kedia & Co., 812, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi PAN: AAYCS0640R (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1071628815(1), dated 27.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Assessee by Ms. Priyanka Jain, CA Department by Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 08.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 08.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1087/Del/2025 2 | P a g e 2. 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.13,78,35,068/- in AY 2020-21 sourced from M/s. Sanjay Jain & Mehta group, as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 23.03.2023, and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 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 civil construction business all along wherein possibility of assessee sourcing its 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) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1087/Del/2025 3 | P a g e 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.13,78,35,068/-, 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 very extent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12th January, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "