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.

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 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 R