Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315809 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
16-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2020-2021
Judgement Text
" INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4784/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi PIN 1100 02 Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, 23-25, Bengali Market, Delhi PIN: 1100 01 PAN No. AAKPG9900B (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenue is against order dated 28.08.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 19.09.2022 by the Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. Assessee by: Shri C.S. Anand & Ms. Vashnavi Yadav, Advs. Department by: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.05.2025 ITA No.4784/Del/2024 2 AO”) under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for assessment year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee individual, e-filed return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 30.03.2021 declaring income of Rs.3,10,61,310/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reasons that “(i) large value of loss claimed under the head income from house property (Business ITR) and (ii) large squared up loans during the year.” 3. Show-cause-notice dated 18.08.2022 was issued by the Ld. AO and Assessee filed submissions with documents. On completion of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 19.09.2022 made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. 4. Against order dated 19.09.2022, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 28.08.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant/revenue filed present appeal. 6. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits by treating them bogus and in-genuine. ITA No.4784/Del/2024 3 7. Learned Authorised Representative for respondent-assessee submitted that Ld. AO had made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of error in the PAN of Rishiaurobindo Educational Society. 8. From examination of record in the light of light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. AO made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in respect of Chanderaprabhu Jain College of Higher Education, Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-40, PAN-AAAPR0183P. During appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that there was a typographical error in the PAN of Rishiaurobindo Educational Society(which was running an educational institute in the name of Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies). The correct PAN is ‘AAABR0183P” and the typed PAN is ‘AAAPR1083P’. It is also seen that the loan received stood repaid. Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the controversy in para nos. 5.1 to 5.8 as under: “5.1 On going through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, and Assessment Order, it is observed that the Assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3)r.w.s. 144B of the Act after making an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Aggrieved appellant, by the Order of the Assessing Officer, is before this office. ITA No.4784/Del/2024 4 5.2 During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that in AY 20-21 loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in respect of Chanderaprabhu Jain college of Higher Education, Plot No. OCF, sector A-8, Narela, Delhi -40, PAN- AAAPR0183P, has been squared up. In order to verify the transaction, the AO tried to issue notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to Chanderaprabhu Jain college of Higher Education, Plot No. OCF, sector A-8, Narela, Delhi -40, PAN-AAAPR0183P. However, on verification on system, the AO observed that PAN- AAAPR0183P is not a valid PAN and therefore could not issue notice. The AO therefore concluded that the appellant had furnished fake information in respect of creditor Chanderaprabhu Jain college of Higher Education, Plot No. OCF, sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-40%. TAX DEPART 5.3 In this regard, during the appellate proceedings, the appellantsubmitted that there was a typographical error in the PAN of Rishiaurobindo Educational Society (which was running an educational institute in the name of Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies) Correct PAN PAN as typed in Form 3CB/3CD AAABR0183P AAAPR0189P Due to this error, the PAN quoted did not match with the records, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credits. 5.4 Further, the AO observed that Rishiaurobindo Educational Society (PAN:AAABR0183P) whose ITR Ack. for AY 2020-21 was filed during the assessment proceedings, is not related with the appellant under reference. In this regard, the appellant has submitted that Rishiaurobindo ITA No.4784/Del/2024 5 Educational Society was running an educational institute in the name of Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies. 5.5 Similarly, the AO observed that the assessee has furnished copy of ledger account of M/s Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 as per the book of CPJ College of Higher Studies, which does not relate with this case with the remark. Furtherverification of ITR of the assessee, it is seen that there is no name of the Proprietor. In the Balance sheet assessee has mentioned the proprietor's name as 'Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar, 23-25, Nathu's Bengali Market, New Delhi-1100021. The assessee did not furnish the confirmation from Shri Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar. However, assessee has furnished confirmation from the Shri Nathu Ram Naresh Kumar. Therefore, assessee has furnished irrelevant information/documents\". 5.6 In this context, the appellant during the appellate proceedings has submitted that the correct name of the proprietary concern of the assessee was Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar. Due to clerical error, the name of the party (to whom loan was advanced) had been erroneously typed as Nathu Ram Naresh Kumar. 5.7 After examining the submissions of the assessee and the relevant records, it is observed that the typographical error in the PAN was the primary reason for the mismatch and subsequent addition of the income under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5.8 In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on account of loan taken from Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies a unit of M/s Rishi Aurobindo Education Society (PAN: AAABR0183P) which stood repaid within next few days. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made vader Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the incorrect PAN, is set aside.” ITA No.4784/Del/2024 6 9. From the above, it is evident that Ld. CIT(A) has noted the factum of repayment, PAN error and presence of corroborative evidence and held that the explanation offered towards credits/loans under Section 68 of the Act is satisfactory. We see no error in the process of reasoning adopted by Ld. CIT(A). We, thus, decline to interfere. 10. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16/05/2025 Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to - 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "
AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal concerning an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made on the grounds of unexplained cash credits. However, during the appellate proceedings, it was revealed that there was a typographical error in the PAN of the creditor, and the loan had been repaid shortly after it was received. The CIT(A) found the explanation satisfactory and deleted the addition, a decision which the Tribunal upheld.
