IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Sunil Bansal, vs. ITO, Ward 55 (3), 11/144, Gali No.8, Delhi.

West Azad Nagar, Delhi – 110 051.

(PAN : ANEPB4635R)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Shri Shrey Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025 Date of Order : 30.09.2025

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 24.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed his return of income on

18.09.2019 declaring taxable income at Rs.8,67,690/-. The case was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee attended and submitted relevant information as called for.

3. The assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of iron and steel under the proprietorship of Bansal Sales Corporation. During assessment proceedings, he observed that during the year, assessee has declared gross turnover of Rs.36,59,71,751/- yielding GP of 0.67% and net profit of 0.26%. The AO on perusal of the Balance Sheet noticed that assessee has shown sundry creditors outstanding at Rs.8,82,71,609/-. In this regard, the assessee was asked to furnish details/confirmation in respect of the above sundry creditors for further verification. The assessee has furnished the details of sundry creditors. The notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities with the remark “not known and left”. The same was confronted with the assessee. The assessee has submitted copies of ledger account showing the purchases made from these creditors. In order to verify the same, an Inspector was deputed to verify the correctness of the business transactions and obtained copy of ledger and ITR from the respective creditors. The Inspector could not trace the two creditors at the given address and the accountant of creditor, SS Traders could not provide the requisite information. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 22.12.2016 was issued to the assessee why a sum of Rs.1,03,09,347/- i.e. a difference of sundry creditors outstanding at the beginning and closing of the period under consideration should not be added to the income of the assessee. The assessee also was informed the status of the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to three main parties i.e. M/s. JBG Trading Co., M/s. S.S. Trading Co. and M/s. Shree Ram Traders. In response, assessee submitted the address and PAN details of the three parties. The AO observed that there is mismatch of PAN numbers declared by the assessee of two parties and there was no PAN detail available for creditor, SS Trading Company. After considering the detailed ledger copies in the books of the assessee company, the AO was of the view that the genuineness of the amount of purchase made during the year and the correctness aggregating to Rs.1,03,09,347/- could not be proved by the assessee, therefore, he proceeded to make the above difference amount to the income of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed a detailed submission which is reproduced at pages 3 to 5 of the appellate order. The matter was remanded to the AO and the remand report is also reproduced at pages 6 to 10 of the appellate order. The assessee also filed a rejoinder to the remand report which is reproduced at pages 11 to 17 of the appellate order. After considering the same, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the grounds raised by the ass