ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ADDL./JOINT/ACIT/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC DELHI/INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

(A)
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.356/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated
29/03/2025
(DIN
&
Order
No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-
25/1075246140(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B)
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 27/09/2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,48,970/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on 02/02/2021 and made an addition of Rs.38,86,000/- under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide impugned appellate order dated
Appellant by Shri K. R. Rastogi, C. A.
Respondent by Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT, D.R.

I.T.A. No.356/Lkw/2025
Assessment Year:2018-19
2

29/03/2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C)
During the course of hearing learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Addition of Rs.38,86,000/- has been made by Assessing Officer with reference to purchase of flat No. A-203, 2nd Floor, Tower-A, Sector-D,
Celebrity Green, Sushant Golf City, Sultanpur Road, Lucknow. Learned A.R.
for the assessee further submitted that during assessment proceedings assessee had submitted that the above flat has not been purchased by assessee, and that the said flat had been purchased by some other person which is duly registered by Registration no. 9723. He further submitted that in the Registered Purchase Deed, due to mistake the PAN of Ajay Kumar
Srivastava (Buyer) has been wrongly typed - ACCPG8788K which belongs to assessee whereas the Correct PAN of Ajay Kumar Srivastava (Buyer) PAN is-
BIDPS4780D. He submitted that the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) have made/sustained the addition solely on the ground that letter for calling information under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to Sub