Amit Bansal vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1)

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 23.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2013-14.

Shri Dinesh Mittal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) has made addition of Rs.23,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of an unexplained amount received from Shri Vipin Kumar (father of the assessee), and made further addition of Rs.13,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act disbelieving the amount recovered from debtors of the assessee. Narrating facts, the AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was distributor of Reliance Communications Ltd. and was engaged in sale of recharge coupons/vouchers in his designated zonal area. After the fall of Reliance Communication Ltd., the assessee had to close his business in FY 2012-13. The assessee is a business partner in firm M/s. Shree Sai Traders. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal the said partnership firm purchased immovable property for a total consideration of Rs.5.20 crores. The share of assessee in said property was 10%. The assessee invested Rs.43,00,000/- for purchase of said property. The source of funds for purchase of the said property was Rs.23,00,000/- as loan from his father, Rs.13,00,000/- recovered from debtors and Rs.7,00,000/- out of cash in hand of M/s. Bansal Telecom. The AO accepted the cash in hand of Rs.7,00,000/-, whereas the other two sources of funds were not accepted by the AO, although all details were furnished to the AO during assessment proceedings. To substantiate his argument, the ld. Counsel placed on record acknowledgement of the documents furnished by the assessee through ITBA portal of the Department on 27.03.2022. The ld. Counsel further referred to the bank statement of Shri Vipin Kumar at pages 40 and 41 of the paper book to show that an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- was transferred by Shri Vipin Kumar to the assessee on 24.12.2012. To prove amount recovered from debtors, he placed on record confirmations alongwith identification documents of debtors.

Per contra, Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the department vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of Punjab National Bank, account statement of Shri Vipin Kumar placed on record by the assessee (at page 40 of the paper book) fairly shows that Shri Vipin Kumar, father of the assessee, had transferred Rs.23,00,000/- to the assessee on 24.12.2012. Therefore, the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act is unwarranted, hence, the same is directed to be deleted. In respect of the addition of Rs.13,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, the assessee had furnished confirmations from the debtors supported by identity documents in the form of Aadhaar and PAN. Considering entire facts of the case and the documents on record, I find that the addition of Rs.13,00,000/- is also without any basis, hence, both the additions are directed to be deleted.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.