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

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 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 Registrar office but no information was received from their office. He also submitted that inspite of specific denial of purchase of flat during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ignored the submissions and evidences and addition has been made. He has submitted the following documents as additional evidence in support of his claim:

(i) Copy of Registered Purchase Deed dated 06.06.2017.

(ii) Copy of Certificate issued by Rishita Developers Pvt. Limited dated 03.03.2021 confirming that the flat has been booked and jointly purchased with his wife Smt. Anjali Srivastava PAN — CTKPS1299E through Registered Sale Deed dated 06.07.2017.

(D) Learned D.R. expressed no objection to admission of additional evidence. Learned A.R. for the assessee and learned D.R. for Revenue were in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding aforesaid addition of Rs.38,86,000/- may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on this specific issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the aforesaid additional evidence filed by the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding aforesaid addition of Rs.38,86,000/- is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on this specific issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 20/11/2025)