IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2021-22)

Income Tax Officer, vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Delhi. C – II/139, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110 002.

(PAN : AOWPS6859K)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date of Order : 15.10.2025

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 13.03.2025 for Assessment Year

2021-22.

2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we are proceeding to decide the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR of the Revenue.

3. Ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice facts of the case and from the facts, we observe that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Assessing Officer has estimated the income on alleged bogus purchases @ 25%. However, we observe from the record that Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account and not brought on record the reasons for the same. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A)

deleted the addition by observing as under :-

“6. Decision –

I have examined facts of the case, and gone through the Order and WSs.

GoA no. 1-5 challenge additions made by the AO for doubtful purchases and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C, 80D and 80TTA of the Act.

The AO has made addition on account of doubtful purchases on the grounds of non-filing of ITRs, non-availability of suppliers at the given addresses, non-submission of bank statements and invoices by suppliers, cancellation of registration on GST portal, mention of different business on GST Portal and use of small-sized transport vehicles for carrying large quantity of goods. The details in this regard can be summarised in the following table (the “Table’)as follow –

# (‘Y’ for ‘YES’ and ‘N’ for ‘NO’)

@ Vehicle is too big in comparison of quantity transported *Vehicle not found on RTO Portal %Transport vehicle not mentioned on bill With regard to comments in column number (3), it is noticed from the Order that notice was not served in the case of supplier mentioned at sl.no.5 only.

With regard to comments in column number (4)-wherever ‘Y’ is mentioned - the registrations were either cancelled suo-moto, cancelled on application of taxpayer or suspended. They were not cancelled by the GST department after finding these firms as bogus entities.

With regard to comments in column number (5), suppliers mentioned at sl.no.7-10 and 11 were not found available. In all other cases, notices were sent but the suppliers did not respond. The AO did not make any enquiry in other cases except for case mentioned at sl.no.4 and 10. In the case of supplier mentioned at sl.no.10, he conducted enquiry at the address mentioned in PAN whereas the address of the supplier was different i.e 2269-71, GaliHinga Beg, Tilak Bazar, North Delhi as is noticed from the copy of account of the supplier available on CPC 2.0.

With regard to comments in column number (6), the supplier mentioned at sl.no.4 denied to have made sales to the appellant but no opportunity of cross-

examination was provided to the appellant.

With regard to comments in column number (7), the supplier mentioned at sl. no.12 was found to be an entry-operator by ADIT (Inv.) but no independent investigation was carried out by the AO and he relied on the report of ADIT(Inv) and that too without providing copy of that report to the appellant.

With regard to comments in column number (8), the suppliers mentioned at sl.no.1,3,6 &9 used smaller vehicles but it is noticed that the goods were delivered from Delhi to Noida in the cases of suppliers mentioned at sl.no.1,4,6,7 & 9 and from Delhi to Gurugram in