ANIL KUMAR HUF,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(5) , DELHI

(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of Anil Kumar HUF the Income Tax Act, 1961 without having valid reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that the re-opening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law having been made without obtaining necessary approval u/s 151 of the Act from the prescribed authority and that it was granted in a mechanical manner.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the assessment of income at Rs. 5,08,68,603/-

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,01,61,803/- being 8% of the total bank credits of Rs. 62,70,22,542/- in bank account of the Karta of the HUF, Anil Kumar Garg.

(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 7,06,800/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged transactions with M/s. Gagan Enterprises. Anil Kumar HUF (ii) That the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the fact that the transaction was recorded in the books of the Karla of the HUF, Anil Kumar Garg.”

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Tek Chand Pawan Kumar engaged in the business trading of rice and masala. He is also karta of Anil Kumar HUF having PAN AACH6188H which is engaged in the business of trading of rice. The PAN of assessee in his individual capacity is AANPG5649N. The assessee in his individual capacity and in the capacity of HUF is duly assessed to income tax and had filed the return regularly. The assessee in his individual capacity for AY 2013-14 had been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.02.2016. As per the PAN data base of the Income Tax Department no return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed by the assessee HUF. Information was received from DDIT(Investigation), Panipat that a search was conducted on Shri Hitesh Jain who in his statement recorded on oath had accepted that he was involved in providing accommodation entries by issuing bogus bills in lieu of certain commission and no actual sale/ purchase took place. The reasons recorded by the ld AO stated that assessee herein had made payment of Rs. 7,06,800/- of Gagan Enterprises which is one of the dumb concern of Shri Hitesh Jain during FY 2012-13 through HDFC Account No. 02172320017643. Reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment and the notice u/s 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 19.03.2020 after getting prior approval of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee had duly mentioned before the ld AO that the PAN allotted to assessee HUF is AANHA7430B and not AACHA6188H and accordingly, the PAN mentioned in the notice issued by the department does not belong to assessee and assessee does not have any relation to that PAN. Later the assessee on verification of records duly Anil Kumar HUF clarified vide letter dated 21.06.2021 before the ld AO that the transaction of payment of Rs. 7,06,800/- made to Gagan Enterprises was carried out by him in his individual capacity having PAN AANPG5649N. The PAN used for filing income tax return for assessee HUF is AANHA7430B. Another PAN allotted to assessee HUF AACHA6188H was sought to be surrendered to the Income Tax Department. The assessee also pointed out that the HUF in said PAN AANHA7430B had duly filed its return of income on 03.08.2014 for AY 2013- 14 and enclosed the copy of ITR acknowledgement thereon. Hence, it was categorically denied that payment of Rs. 7,06,800/- to Gagan Enterprises was not carried out by the assessee in his HUF capacity rather the same was carried out in his individual capacity. The assessee was asked to furnish documents in support of this claim that the transaction pertain to Anil Kumar Garg in his individual capacity. The assessee furnished bank account details, bank statement, bank book and purchase book of Tek Chand Pawan Kumar (proprietary concern of assessee individual). Summons were issued by the ld AO to Axis Bank, Chandni Chowk for furnishing of bank statement. The bank was also asked to inform the PAN attached with the said bank account. The bank vide email dated 21.09.2021 replied that the PAN attached with this bank account was AACHA6188H. Accordingly, the ld AO concluded that the payment of Rs. 7,06,800/- was on account of accommodation entry obtained by the assessee in his HUF capacity. 4. Further, the ld AO from the bank statement of the assessee observed that the credits in the Axis Bank A/c No. 254010300000790 in the name of the account holder Mr. Tek Chand Pawan Kumar of Rs. 62,70,22,542/- in the FY 2012-13 were unexplained. The ld AO estimated the profit percentage thereon @8% of turnover and made an addition of Rs. 5,01,61,803/- in the assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 29.09.2021. This assessment was confirmed by the ld NFAC. Anil Kumar HUF 5. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee produced a new certificate from the Axis Bank dated 21.10.2021 wherein, the bank had duly rectified its earlier mistake by stating that the concerned bank account pertain only to assessee individual and not assessee HUF. The said additional evidence was not admitted by the ld CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. Since, the very basis of assessment proceedings was placing reliance on the bank certificate issued earlier by the bank, which stood specifically revised by the bank itself, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fairplay to restore this appeal to the file of the ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, including the additional evidences submitted before the ld CIT(A), in support of his contentions. The ld AO is also directed to give a factual finding as to whether the transactions in the said Axis Bank Account had been considered in the hands of Anil Kumar individual and if so considered, the same shall not be considered in the hands of the assessee HUF. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/12/2025. - - (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER