MADAN ARORA,CHANDIGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1060/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Shri Madan Arora against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 35 lacs to his total income for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee failed to explain the source of a loan of Rs. 35 lacs to Shri Rajesh Kumar. The assessee contended that the bank had erroneously reflected the entry as a loan to him instead of Shri Rajesh Kumar. To clarify this, the assessee provided a bank certificate from ICICI Bank and a copy of his HDFC account statement, which demonstrated that the amount was debited from his account and credited to Shri Rajesh Kumar's account on the same date. The Tribunal, after reviewing the documents, concluded that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the loan and thus allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298522 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च\u0010डीगढ़ \u0014यायपीठ, च\u0010डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1060/CHD/2024 नधा\u0011रण वष\u0011 / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Madan Arora, House No.1018, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh. Vs The ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh. \u0016थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAZPA5971F अपीलाथ\u001a/Appellant \u001b यथ\u001a/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 14.08.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by three days. The assessee has filed an application for ITA No.1060/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 2 condonation of delay wherein he has pointed out that if period of communication is being calculated from the date of passing the order till it was served upon the assessee, then there is no delay. Considering the explanation of the assessee, we condone the delay of three days and proceed the appeal on merit. 3. Though the assessee has taken five grounds of appeal but his solitary grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.35 lacs to the total income of the assessee. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The above addition is being made by the AO on the ground that assessee failed to explain source of loan of Rs.35 lacs to one Shri Rajesh Kumar. The stand of the assessee is that bank has committed an error by reflecting entry on 20.04.2011 of Rs.35 lacs as given to Shri Madan Arora. In order to explain this ambiguity, assessee has submitted Bank Certificate from ICICI Bank wherein Shri Rajesh Kumar is maintaining a Saving Bank Account. The ICICI Bank has categorically issued a certificate exhibiting ITA No.1060/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 3 that on 20.04.2011, Rs.35 lacs has been credited to this account from HDFC Account. The assessee has placed on record copy of his HDFC account from where a sum of Rs.35 lacs has been debited on 20.04.2011 and RTGS was issued to Shri Madan Arora. This was the mistake committed by the HDFC Bank because there were two RTGS, one of Rs.10 lacs which was in the name of Shri Madan Arora and other ought to be in the name of Shri Rajesh Kumar. Due to this ambiguity, the addition has been made. 5. On due consideration of Bank Statement of the assessee as well as certificate of ICICI Bank of the recipient, we are satisfied that assessee has explained the source of loan given to Shri Rajesh Kumar and no addition is sustainable to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the addition. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 21.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” ITA No.1060/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 4 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u000f/ The Appellant 2. \u0003\u0010यथ\u000f/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u0014/ CIT 4. िवभागीय \u0003ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च\u0018डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "