Sunita Grover Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Bogus Purchase Disallowance ≠ 69C Case: PCIT Can’t Rewrite Assessment Merely to Invoke 115BBE: Section 263 Set Aside-When AO Has Enquired & Taken a Plausible View, 263 Has No Legs to Stand On
Delhi ITAT ‘E’ Bench in Sunita Grover vs PCIT, Rohtak (ITA No.3608/Del/2025, AY 2018-19, order dated 24-12-2025) quashed the revisionary order passed u/s 263, holding that PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction by branding a bogus-purchase disallowance as a case u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE, despite the AO having conducted proper enquiries and taken a legally sustainable view.
Assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on allegations of accommodation entries through bogus purchase bills amounting to ₹3.26 crore from Rajesh Mittal group concerns. During reassessment, AO issued notices u/s 133(6), used the Verification Unit, relied on third-party statements, examined invoices, ledgers and bank statements, and ultimately disallowed the purchases u/s 37(1) as non-genuine, along with a small commission addition u/s 69C.
PCIT invoked section 263 alleging that the AO should have treated the entire purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and taxed the same at 60% u/s 115BBE, terming the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.
ITAT rejected this approach, holding that:
