IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4528/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/115, Flat No. B-1, Sai Niwas, Ward 2(1), Arya Nagar, Kanpur - 208020 Moradabad ( U.P)

Uttar Pradesh. PIN: 244 001 PAN :ACMPG1836E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by S/Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Somil Aggarwal & Deepesh Garg, Advs.

Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.10.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 20.08.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of Order dated 29.03.2022 of the Learned Assessing Officer/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Sections 147 r.w.s. 148B of the Act for assessment year 2014-15.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.6,46,010/-. The case was reopened on information that the assessee had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.40,23,000/-. During verification, assessee failed to provide the source of investments. After recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval of the Competent Authority, notice under Section 148 dated 31.3.2021 was issued. The assessee claimed that he has e-file return of income in response to the notice under Section 148 on 25.01.2022. No cognizance of this return was taken being filed after a period of 10 months from the due date as per notice. Penalty proceedings under Section 271F of the Act for non-filing of ITR In response to notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 by the prescribed period initiated separately. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.12.2021 was issued to the assessee for providing the source of investment made in the purchase of immoveable property along with documentary evidence. The assessee filed reply stating that the impugned property was purchased by the HUF of the Karta i.e. with Shri Deepak Kumar Gupta under PAN AAHHD5470J. Copy of ITR-V e-filed by the HFU was enclosed. Copy of bank account was also filed. Show-cause-notice dated 22.03.2022 was issued to the assessee proposing addition. Reply to show-cause-notice was filed by the assessee. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated 29.03.2022 made addition of Rs.40,23,000/- as per section 69 of the Act and separate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were initiated.

3. Against order dated 29.03.2022 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 20.08.2024.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following Grounds of Appeal:

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,23,000/- made by A.O (NFAC) u/s 69 of the I.T Act for so called unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property.

2. That the source of deposits (credit entries) in Bank Account from where the payment towards purchase of property has been made is fully explained and proved. Ld. A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily held that the appellant failed to explain the source of the entries in the HUF Bank Account.

3. That if the source of deposit in HUF Bank Account is proved and explained, it won't matter whether the payment is made from Individual Bank Account or HUF Bank Account. Ld. CIT(A) has factually as well as legally erred in dismissing the appeal and in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,23,000/- made by A.O(NFAC).

4. That under the facts and circumstance of the case the addition of Rs.

40,23,000/- deserves to be deleted.

5. That the a