IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1491/Del/2022 Asstt. Year : 2014-15 PUSHPA SALUJA, VS. ITO, WARD 45(4)

C/O MR. KANISHK RANA, NEW DELHI ADVOCATE, B-8, SPRING LANE, GREEN AVENUE, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI – 110 070 (PAN: ALOPP4728R)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Sh. Kanishk Rana, Adv. & Ms. Nisha Bhardwaj, Adv.

Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.01.2026

ORDER

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by the assessee is arising from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi in appeal No. 322/16-17 dated 23.9.2019. Assessment was framed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.03.2024 relating to assessment year 2014-15.

2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 281/2024 & CM No. 28759/2024 dated 15.4.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has given a specific direction that ITAT will examine whether the additions were made u/s. 68 of the Act are sustainable or not and also to consider whether any allowance is required to be made for purchases in the event it is held that the same is sundry creditors as reflected by the assessee in the books of accounts and had not supplied the goods on credit. Relevant directions given in para 13 of the judgment in the said case, are as under:-

“13. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to learned ITAT to consider afresh. The learned ITAT will examine whether the additions were made under Section 68 of the Act as held by the learned CIT(A) and if so whether the same are sustainable. The learned ITAT shall also consider the question whether any allowance is required to be made for purchases in the event it is held that the sundry creditors as reflected by the assessee in the books, had not supplied the goods on credit.”

3. In view of the above directions, Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and stated that the AO has doubted the bogus purchases amounting to RS. 55,54,382/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed complete details including confirmations from sundry creditors, which are in dispute namely Ambey Farbric, Dabur Exclusive, Meenu Fashions and Unique creations. The AO require the assessee to produce these creditors as he was having suspicion about the genuineness of these creditors. The assessee produced the complete confirmations, bills and vouchers of purchase. The assessee also produced Shri Ritesh Kukreja of M/s Dabur Exclusives who denied having any transaction with the assessee and the relevant statement of Sh. Ritesh Kukreja is reproduced in the assessment order. The AO noted that assessee failed to produce the other sundry creditors and hence, according to him the above stated sundry creditors are bogus and accordingly he treated this amount as bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 55,54,382/. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

4. Ld. CIT(A) relying on his predecessor’s orders for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 confirmed the additions vide para no. 4.7 as under:-

“4.7 Therefore, in the light of the present set of facts and circumstances of the case it is inferred that the appellant had largely failed on all accounts, as and when it comes to establishing the creditworthiness of the third party to whom the various amounts were recorded as payable in the books of accounts. It is further notice from para 4.3 of the order of the AO that the assessee is having a history of bogus purchases. (a) in AY 2012-13, the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed and an addition of RS. 36,24,768/- on account of bogus purchases was made which was confirmed by me predecessor the Ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi vide order dated 21.7.2016. (b) in AY 2013-14 the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was