ITO, DELHI V. SUNIL DUTT SAINI, DELHI

ITA 5765/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) against Sunil Dutt Saini concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 537.22 crores to the assessee's income, categorizing it as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, based on discrepancies noted in Form 26AS and SFT data. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding that the AO had not substantiated the claim with adequate evidence. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO had failed to provide specific details of the alleged investments or the bank accounts involved, and had not adequately considered the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee, including a technical error in data uploading by M/s. Quicksun Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839836 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 148; 69

Judgement Text

"5765_DEL_2024_SUNIL DUTT SAINI 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5765/DEL/2024; Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITO Ward-34(1) Vs Sunil Dutt Saini House No. 230, Shalimar Village Delhi- 02 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AOQPS9126R Assessee Represented by: Shri Arijit Chakravarty, Adv. Revenue/Department Represented by: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT [DR] Date of Hearing: 18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.10.2024, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2017-18. Assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2022. 2. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal which are as under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the whole addition of Rs.537.22 crores made by the AO on account of unexplained investments made by the assessee during the F.Y. 2016-17, as it is the unexplained investment/credits of the assessee and the same was not offered for taxation during the F.Y. 2016-17. Printed from counselvise.com 5765_DEL_2024_SUNIL DUTT SAINI 2 | P a g e 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the total addition of Rs. Rs.537.22 crores by not appreciating the facts which are reflecting in form 26AS and as per tax payer annual summary against SFT-003 reflecting against M/s. Quicksun Technologies Pvt Ltd is Rs. 537,22,28,700/- which needs to be proved by the assessee. The assessee did not furnish any documentary evidences to substantiate the transaction regarding the cash deposits and credits in bank account of the assessee during the A.Y. 2017-18.” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee did not file its return for A.Y. 2017-18. In view of the information available on the Non-Filer Monitoring System (NMS) of the department, Ld. AO noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 65,92,72,677/- in current account and had also received commission/brokerage amounting to Rs. 2,751/-. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. However, the assessee did not file return to this notice as well. During the course of proceedings, the assessee explained that he was having income below the taxable limit which for which no return was filed and that he did not have any current account in any bank. The assessee further submitted that the assessee was running a propriety concern by name of M/s Saini Telecom & Photostat wherein he carried mobile repairing work and photostat, stationery business. The assessee was also engaged in commission agency business for transfer of money and was working with the following entities: i. M/s Nearby Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ii. M/s Suvidha Infoserve Pvt Ltd. iii. M/s Quicksun Technologies Pvt Ltd. Total income from these activities was declaring at Rs. 2,77,730/-. However, Ld. AO noted that the total amount reflecting in Form 26AS. As per the summary available against SFT-003 reflecting against M/s Quicksun Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 5,37,22,28,700/- which needs to be explained by the assessee. After rejecting assessee’s contention, the Ld. AO proceeded to add the above amount of Rs. 5,37,22,28,700/- u/s 69 of the Act no special rates of taxation applicable Printed from counselvise.com 5765_DEL_2024_SUNIL DUTT SAINI 3 | P a g e u/s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee with the following observations: “ 6(b). I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also considered the assessee's submissions. From the facts, it is seen that the AO originally recorded the reasons to examine the issue of cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 65.92 Crores made in his current account, but in the assessment order there was not even a whisper about the details of current account such as account no., bank name etc, or the details of cash deposits. Further, during the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO has picked up a new issue with regard to cash deposits of Rs. 471.29 Crores as per AIS information. With regard to this issue, the AO very vaguely mentions in the assessment order that this amount was unearthed due to the discrepancies in 26AS statement. In this regard, the assessee clearly explained that there was technical error in uploading the data by one of the money transfer companies by name, M/s. Quicksun Technologies P Ltd. The assessee also explained that he acted as commission agent for M/s. Quicksun Technologies in transferring money of migrant labourers to the account of their family members. The assessee also filed a reconciliation statement and confirmations from M/s. Quicksun Technologies which was clearly reproduced in the assessment order, but the AO did not appreciate these submissions and finally made the addition of Rs. 537.22 Crores as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the IT Act without any corroborative evidence and without any proper material. The AO scanned replies of the assessee and reconciliation statements and confirmations from the money transfer portal of M/s. Quicksun Technologies P Ltd which clearly explains that transactions were not carried by the assessee but they were done by the money transfer portals. Despite this, the AO simply made addition of Rs. 537.22 Crores as unexplained investments which is highly uncalled for and without any proper basis. Thus, the AO started to examine the issue of unexplained cash deposits in the current account of the assessee and finally landed up in concluding that these are not cash deposits but unexplained investments. the details of investments which are not recorded in the books of accounts were not deliberated or unearthed by the AO in the assessment order. Thus, the AO did not bring any basis or any relevant materials in making addition u/s. 69 as unexplained investments. Thus, the Printed from counselvise.com 5765_DEL_2024_SUNIL DUTT SAINI 4 | P a g e addition made by the AO u/s.69 are not warranted and the same are hereby deleted. The ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed.\" 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that there was no justification for the Ld. AO to make the impugned addition when the assessee had filed all requisite documents including confirmation from M/s Quicksun Technologies Pvt. Ltd. stating clearly that the amount was reflecting wrongly against the assessee’s name on the system due to an error which the company was unable to rectify at its end. Further, the information available in Form 26AS cannot be the sole basis of addition without specific details and supporting evidence which the Ld. AO has failed to mention. Ld. AO has simply disregarded the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and relied solely on the SFT information to make impugned addition which has rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 4.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR has vehemently argued that the action of Ld. AO was justified in view of the information reflected on the portal under the SFT System and the assessee had not submitted sufficient documentary evidences to prove that the amount did not relate to him. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We note that while making the addition, Ld. AO has simply mentioned the amount reflected on the SFT System. He has not given any details of the bank accounts in which this amount has been credited. On its part, the assessee has categorically stated that he did not maintain any current account and has submitted details of his savings bank accounts. Even the confirmation/ clarification given by M/s Quicksun Technologies Pvt. Ltd. regarding wrong entry on the system made inadvertently, has been simply disregarded without making any further verification. In the light of above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Ld. AO was not justified in making impugned addition without specifying the requisite details and by simply adopting the figure from SFT data. We, therefore, Printed from counselvise.com 5765_DEL_2024_SUNIL DUTT SAINI 5 | P a g e hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition and there is no reason for us to interfere with the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.02.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "