ADITYA GUPTA HUF,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, GHAZIABAD

At the time of hearing, submitted that the addition of Rs. 30,25,834/- made by the AO is based on surmises, as the same was made without considering the documents and evidences furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings regarding issuance of same PAN No. to another Aditya Gupta HUF, residing at Mumbai, Maharashtara, to whom the said income relates. She further submitted that AO has wrongly made the addition in dispute as income of the assessee not offered to tax as the said income does not belong to the assessee and this fact was brought to the notice of the AO during assessment proceedings alongwith proof of communication with the department for making rectification in the Taxpayer information summary. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.

I have heard both the sides and perused the records. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, I deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing officer with the directions to verify the aforesaid aspect, as narrated by the Ld. AR for the assessee in preceding para of this order, and then decide the issues in dispute, afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.04.2025.