ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.12/Del/2026 (A.Y 2019-20) Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. ACIT 402, Technology Apartment, Circle 1(1), C. R. Building, I. P. Extension, Patparganj, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ARTPS3880L Assessee by : Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 07/09/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM.: The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order

dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)

under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 24.03.2025 passed by

the Assessment Unit, Income-tax department under Section 147 read with

Section 144B of theAct for Assessment Year 2019-20.

proceeding under Section 147 of the Act was initiated pursuant to a notice

under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 21.03.2023 only on the basis of an

information available on the Insight Portal alleging the appellant had

received an unexplained credit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- form one M/s

Triconnect Infra India Private Limited. The Assessee duly filed its reply

explaining the amount represented a genuine loan received through banking

2 ITA No. 12/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. ACIT

channel and supporting documents including the loan agreement,

confirmation, ledger account, bank statements and financial statements of

the lender were duly furnished. However, the Assessing Officering

ultimately passed anorder under Section 148A(d) dated 05.04.2024 and

further issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act alleging income

escapement assessment qua the loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from the said

M/s Triconnect Infra India Private Limited culminating in making addition

of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 69A by treating the said loan as

unexplained which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority.

Hence, the instant appeal before us.

of the Act, as to why Notice under Section 148 of the Act may not be issued

against the Assessee on the basis of the information on record suggesting

income chargeable to the tax escaped assessment for A.Y 2019-20 in

response thereto the Assessee replied that he is one of the Directors of

Zephyr Limited and Ashpra Skills Pvt. Ltd. and the source of his income is

income from salary, income from house property i.e. the rental income and

income from other sources i.e. the interest income. The relevant document

in support of the said income were duly furnished before the Ld. AO

including the documents and information explaining the transactions

impugned i.e. receipt from M/s Triconnect Infra Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.

1,00,00,000/- being the loan taken from the said company by the Assessee.

It was further clarified that the same was received by the Assessee through

banking channel and a copy of the bank statement of the Assessee showing

3 ITA No. 12/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. ACIT

receipt and ledger account togetherwith declaration signed by the authorized

person on behalf of the company was also attached to such reply. Apart

from that the Assessee duly submitted that since the Assessee does not have

any business income or from profession exceeding the limit prescribed for

tax audit, no Form 3CB-CD was required to be filed and merely because the

form was not filed, the genuine loan transaction should not be treated as

unexplained credit as the case made out by the assessee. In support of the

same, a confirmation letter from the relevant parties was also duly attached

along with the reply filed by the Assessee on 28th March, 2023. Finally, we

find that on 05.04.2023 an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was

issued by the ITO, Circle-1(1), Delhi, the paragraph 3 whereof narrates the

entire loan taken by the Assessee from the said M/s Triconnect Infra Pvt.

Ltd. through banking channel and the bank statement of the Assessee

showing receipt and the ledger togetherwith declaration were submitted.

However, the same was not found to be convincing as the Assessee has not

mentioned any information in the ITR in respect of the said loan and

therefore, the Ld. AO was of the final opinion that the Assessee had escaped

assessment to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- which has been considered as

unexplained and to be taxed in the hands of the Assessee for A.Y 2019-20

and, therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Act to be issued.

Ld. AO on the ultimate finding that the assessee has not mentioned loan

information in the ITR is not sustainable in the eyes of law as because the

assessee is an individual and there is no scope of disclosing this particular

4 ITA No. 12/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. ACIT

fact of receiving loan in the return so filed by the assessee. In support of this

case made out by the assessee, the Ld. A.R brought to our notice to the ITR,

wherefrom it appears that there is no column for disclosure of any loan

there. Neither any books of accounts nor ledger account could have been

annexed as the assessee does not have any income from business or

profession. Such argument made by the Ld. AR is also found to be

convincing having regard to copy of the return filed by the assessee at page

12 to 48 of the paper book file before us. Infact, during the course of hearing

the Ld. DR could not controvert such submission made by the Ld. AR.

Admittedly there is no column for disclosure of any loan in the ITR so filed

by the Assessee being an individual and, therefore, having regard to the

entire aspect of the matter, we find that non consideration of this particular

aspect of the matter which was duly explained before the Ld. AO is nothing

but non-application of mind and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act

is thus, found to be mechanical, vague, non speaking. When the Assessee

has filed the entire set of documents in support of the genuineness of loan

received through normal banking channel including the loan agreement,

confirmation from the lender, the ledger account, the bank statement and

financial statement of the lender in response to the notice under Section

148(b) of the Act, the same ought to have been considered in its proper

perspective and further alleging non disclosure of loan transaction in the

ITR scope whereof was not been available since the assessee is an

individual, the entire order under Section 148A(d) of the Act leading to

issuance of order under Section 148 of the Act is found to be bad in law, not

sustainable and, therefore quashed.

5 ITA No. 12/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. ACIT

with the jurisdictional issue and decided the matter finally, the other

grounds raised by the Assessee become academic and, therefore, no orders

need to be passed. Assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07/09/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi