SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN,GURGURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2306/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 August 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had not diligently examined the facts and had given cryptic findings. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

During a search, the assessee was found with Rs. 40,00,000 cash, of which he claimed Rs. 15,50,000 as advance for property sale. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount under Section 69A as no credible evidence was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the cash seized being an advance for property sale, and if not, whether a fresh opportunity should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Bineet Sundriyal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, CIT DR
Hearing: 17.08.2026

ITA No. 2306/DEL/2026 SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2306/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF V-9/2, DLF, Phase-III, . INCOME TAX, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002. Jhandewalan Extn., PAN No. AAOPK3187C New Delhi, Delhi 110055. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Bineet Sundriyal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Robin Rawal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 17.08.2026 Pronouncement on 17.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 13.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-23, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the assessee was searched by the CBI on 28.06.2022 and cash of Rs.40,00,000/- was seized from the assessee. The assessee claimed ownership of the seized cash to the extent of Rs.15,50,000/- out of the total seizure of Rs.40,00,000/-. It was claimed before the Ld. AO that the assessee had received Rs.15,00,000/- on account of advance against sale of a particular property. The Ld. AO has recorded that no credible evidence was submitted in justification of this claim of receiving 1

ITA No. 2306/DEL/2026 SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN cash as advance for sale of property. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added Rs.15,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

1.2 The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with his grievance and there also he could not succeed on the basis of a very cryptic finding on page 8 of the impugned order, through which it has been mentioned that the assessee did not provide any proof of receiving the impugned amount.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR took us through the orders of authorities below and argued that while the Ld. AO had accepted the assessee’s contention regarding the ownership of only Rs.15.50 lakhs instead of the entire amount of Rs.40,00,000/- found in his possession, but the contention of the assessee that Rs.15,00,000/- represented advance received for a proposed sale of property, was not accepted in spite of evidence being provided for the same. It was the submission that the contention of the assessee needed to be accepted on the basis of facts and in case there was any shortcoming in the same then the assessee should be allowed another opportunity to present the evidences before the Ld. AO.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us. We find that both the

ITA No. 2306/DEL/2026 SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN authorities below have not really gone into the facts with any degree of diligence and they have only scratched the surface. We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a very cryptic finding which does not help us in giving a concrete finding on the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give ample opportunity of being heard.

4.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →