ITAT Slams Revenue: Appeal Dismissed After AO’s Unexplained Truck Business Income Addition Found Baseless:

ITAT Delhi did not find any relevant reason to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) and hence rejected the appeal filed by the DCIT/Revenue/Income Tax Department.
ITAT Delhi Endores Claims Submitted by Assessee

ITAT Slams Revenue: Appeal Dismissed After AO’s Unexplained Truck Business Income Addition Found Baseless
The present appeal has been filed by the DCIT, Circle 61(1), Delhi (Appellant), against a taxpayer named Sukhbir Singh Chabra (Respondent) in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench “G”, New Delhi, before Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial Member) and Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra (Accountant Member). The case is related to the assessment year 2016-17, was heard in the court on August 21, 2025, and the final decision was announced on November 04, 2025.
This appeal has been filed by the Income Tax Department challenging an order dated February 28, 2020, issued by the CIT(A), for the assessment year 2016-17. The order deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained income of the assessee from the truck-running business.
The authorised representative of the department claimed that in violation of Rule 46A, the assessee furnished additional evidence before CIT(A), which led it to mistakenly allow the appeal; however, the AO was not given any chance to cross-check the evidence submitted by the assessee. On this, the authorised representative of the assessee claimed that they did not submit additional evidence before CIT(A); whatever evidence was furnished earlier before the AO during the assessment was the same as what was served before CIT(A).
When the case was taken before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi. The tribunal ruled that since the Income Tax Department (Revenue) could not flag which documents were additionally submitted as evidence before CIT(A), the court rejected the claim of revenue.
The tribunal did not find any relevant reason to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) and hence rejected the appeal filed by the DCIT/Revenue/Income Tax Department.
Refer to the official judgement for complete information
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2587My Recent Articles
- Rs 1.48 Crore Interest on Delayed Property Payments Qualifies as Cost of Acquisition: ITAT DelhiPremium
- ROC Penalises Company and Director Rs 20,000 for Wrong AGM Date in Form AOC-4CFSPremium
- ROC Penalises Company's Eight Directors Over Non-Appointment of Two Independent Directors for FY 2015-16 to 2018-19Premium
- An Inadvertent Typographical Error in Tax Audit Report Should Not Lead to An Unmerited Disallowance, Rules ITATPremium
- 21 CBI Officials Honoured With President’s Medals for Distinguished and Meritorious Service on 80th Independence Day
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts







