Geeta Goyal vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078128212(1) dated 02.07.2025, in proceed ings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

Learned counsel representing assessee presses for her sole substantive grievance w her ein she is aggrieved against both the lower authoritie s’ actio n disallowing her purchase s of Rs.26,03,700/- sourced from M/s Shree Balaji Wooltex; in the cour se of assessment fr amed on 06.02.2025 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, this tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case record that the assessee is regular business activity in polyester tr ading 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 co urse of hear ing 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 computat ion shall fo llow as per law.

Learned counse l raises the assessee’s second substantive arguments that the impugned bogus purchase disallowance could not have for med subject matter of assessment u/s 115BBE of the Act attracting higher rate o f taxation. The Revenue could hard ly 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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.