AMIT BANSAL,BULANDSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BULANDSHAHR

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

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.