Case Number: ITA 1477/DEL/2020
Appellant: DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi
Respondent: Sukhbir Shokeen, New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2016-17
Result: 2016-17
Case Filed On: 2020-08-07
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-05-23
Pronounced On: 2023-05-23
DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi, dated 09.03.2020. The appeal was regarding unexplained investments and substantial cash deposits by Sukhbir Shokeen for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issues were the substantial credits in Sukhbir Shokeen’s bank accounts and the purchase of properties without satisfactory explanations for the sources of funds.
The case was heard by the Delhi Bench ‘G’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi, comprising Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, and Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member.
ITA No. 1477/Del/2020: This appeal by DCIT Central Circle-29 contested the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained investments and cash deposits by Sukhbir Shokeen, as ordered by the CIT(A)-30.
The AO noted substantial credits in Sukhbir Shokeen’s bank accounts, including cash deposits, which were not satisfactorily explained. The AO added these amounts as income under section 44AD and section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, stating that the AO did not provide sufficient time for the assessee to explain the transactions and that the provisions of section 44AD were incorrectly applied as Sukhbir Shokeen’s income was from brokerage and commission.
The Tribunal observed that the AO had added Rs. 78,02,204/- as income under section 44AD, considering the substantial credits in the bank accounts. Additionally, the AO added Rs. 4,59,50,000/- under section 69 for unexplained investments in properties. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, highlighting the lack of time given to the assessee to explain the transactions and the improper application of section 44AD.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not bring any substantial evidence to attract the provisions of section 44AD. Furthermore, the CIT(A) held that the credits and debits in the bank accounts were duly explained, and the documentary evidence provided by the assessee supported the sources of funds for the investments.
In light of the above findings, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the explanations and documentary evidence provided by Sukhbir Shokeen were satisfactory and that the AO did not provide sufficient grounds to apply section 44AD or add the amounts under section 69.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.05.2023.
SD/-
(Yogesh Kumar US)
Judicial Member
SD/-
(Dr. B. R. R. Kumar)
Accountant Member
Date: 23.05.2023
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform