YUGAL KISHORE BARNWAL,PATNA vs. ITO WARD-6(5) PATNA (BIHAR), PATNA

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 12 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and the reasons stated, we are satisfied that there existed a

I.T.A. No.563/Pat/2025 Yugal Kishore Barnwal ; AY: 2017-18 reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 12 days is condoned.

I.T.A. No.563/Pat/2025 Yugal Kishore Barnwal ; AY: 2017-18 With regard to the second bank account with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Patna City, the assessee stated that the said account was linked to another PAN No. AFAPB0391J, which had been inadvertently obtained, and later surrender. Due to existence of two PAN, the said bank account could not be disclosed in the return of income, filed under the PAN No. ALUPB3728M. It was also stated that the interest income of Rs.1,59,019/- was earned from the said bank account, on which TDS of Rs.15, 906/- was deducted. However, in the return filed by the assessee, only at Rs.1,16,052/- was disclosed under the head of income from other sources, which was actually happened due to confusion arising from dual PAN. Ultimately, the Ld. AO examined the submission of the assessee, the explanation with respect to deposits of Punjab National Bank was found acceptable, and no addition was made on that account. However, in respect of the deposit made in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, amounting to Rs.4,96,970/-, out of its Rs.2,10,000/- during the demonetisation period, and Rs.2,86,970/- deposited other than the demonetisation period, the Ld. AO treated the entire amount as unexplained money under 69A of the Act, on the ground that said account was not disclosing the return of income. Further, the AO added entire interest income of Rs.1,59,019/- as undisclosed income, observing that the assessee has failed to disclose the same fully in return, which was received by the assessee from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as interest income. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer.

I.T.A. No.563/Pat/2025 Yugal Kishore Barnwal ; AY: 2017-18 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal, stating that the entire issue arose due to the inadvertent allotment of two PAN in the name of assessee. The Ld. AR stated the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur account was not disclosed due to its linkage with second PAN, and the deposits made in the said account represents the business receipt already accounted for in the overall income disclosed by the assessee in the return income. It was further submitted the assessee has already disclosed income of Rs.4,08,290/-, which included income from business, as well as income from other sources, amounting to Rs.1,16,052/-. The Ld. AR stated the interest income actually earned was Rs.1,59,090/- and, therefore, only the difference amount of Rs.42,967/- could be considered for addition, since the income from other sources already shown by the assessee in his return of income was Rs.1,16,052/-. The Ld. AR further stated that assessee should be granted credit of TDS amounting to Rs.15,906/-, as the said is pertinent to the income now being assessed by the Assessing Officer, treating the undisclosed income of Rs.1,59,090/-. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below. 7. We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perusing the materials available on record, we find that it is undisputed fact that the assessee had two PAN, namely, ALUPB3728M and AFAPB0391J, and that the second bank account was linked to the later PAN. It is also evident that the existence of the dual PAN linked to non-disclosure of the said bank account in the return of income. From the assessment order, it is observed that the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation regarding the deposit made in the Punjab National Bank and made no

I.T.A. No.563/Pat/2025 Yugal Kishore Barnwal ; AY: 2017-18 addition in response thereof. However, the addition of Rs.4,96,970/- was made solely on account of deposit in the second bank account, which remain undisclosed. In our considered opinion, the omission to disclose the said bank account cannot be viewed in isolation, without appreciating the surrounding circumstances. The assessee has demonstrated that transactions were part of the business activity, and that substantial income has already been disclosed in the return of income by showing an income of Rs.4,96,970/-. Moreover, existence of two PAN is plausible explanation for the discrepancy, particularly when one PAN number has been subsequently surrendered. Accordingly, we find that the addition of Rs.4,96,917/- made u/s 69A is not sustainable and deserves to be deleted. Since assessee has disclosed return of income of Rs.4,08,290/- in his return income. However, the addition on account of interest income, with regard to the addition of interest income, we found that the total interest earned by the assessee of Rs.1,59,090/- and assessee, in his return of income, income shown from the other sources at Rs.1,16,052/-. Thus, there is a short disclosure of Rs.42,296/-. In our view, the only differential amount of Rs.42,967/- can be brought to tax under the head of income from other sources, and not the entire amount, as added by the Assessing Officer. Further, we notice that since TDS at Rs.15,906/- has been deducted on such income, the assessee is also entitled to claim credit for the same, in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, the addition of Rs.4,96,970/- made u/s 69A is hereby deleted, and the addition amount of interest income is restricted to Rs.42,967/-, and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the

I.T.A. No.563/Pat/2025 Yugal Kishore Barnwal ; AY: 2017-18 credit of TDS amounting to Rs.15,906/- as per law, while calculating the income of the assessee.

Kolkata, the 26th March, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 26.03.2026. DP, PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches