Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of purchases of Rs.26,03,700/- from M/s Shree Balaji Wooltex, made during assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's primary contention was that the disallowance should not be taxed under Section 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was involved in regular business activity and likely used M/s Shree Balaji Wooltex for billings while sourcing actual purchases elsewhere. A lump sum disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, and the disallowance was directed to be assessed under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE.
Key Issues
Whether the impugned bogus purchase disallowance could be subjected to higher taxation under Section 115BBE of the Act and the appropriateness of the quantum of disallowance.
Sections Cited
147, 115BBE, 37
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Geeta Goyal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 991, Sector-12, HUDA Phase-II, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGYPG1846J Assessee by: Sh. Manju Sabharwal, Adv. & Sh. Devvrart Tiwari, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078128212(1) dated 02.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel representing assessee presses for her sole substantive grievance wherein she is aggrieved against both the lower authorities’ action disallowing her purchases of Rs.26,03,700/- sourced from M/s Shree Balaji Wooltex; in the course of assessment framed on 06.02.2025 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, this tribunal Geeta Goyal hereby notices from a perusal of the case record that the assessee is regular business activity in polyester trading etc. which has not been disputed in principle. The necessary inference which would therefore arise in such an instance is that she has availed purchases entries from M/s Shree Balaji Wooltex and sourced her actual purchases from other market operators. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned counsel’s case during the course of hearing is that the assessee had only sourced her purchases to the tune of Rs.9,10,800/- from M/s Shree Balaji Wooltex.
Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- the assessee’s purchases only 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.
Learned counsel raises the assessee’s second substantive arguments that the impugned bogus purchase disallowance could not have formed subject matter of assessment u/s 115BBE of the Act attracting higher rate of taxation. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the impugned bogus purchases disallowance forms subject matter u/s 37 than that assessment u/s 115BBE of the Act. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under “normal” provisions only.