PREM SIKKA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD (50)4 , NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8307/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2012-20133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the bank statement showed only a cash deposit of Rs. 75,000, not the amount alleged by the AO. The CIT(A) had not duly considered the assessee's explanation for this deposit.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made two additions: disallowing exemption under Section 54 and treating Rs. 16,96,000 as unexplained money under Section 69. The CIT(A) granted relief on the Section 54 addition but sustained the Section 69 addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 16,96,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A was justified, considering the bank statement and assessee's explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.05.2026

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 15.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the assessee is reported to be deceased and the appeal has been filed by the one Shri Sanjay Sikka, Legal Heir of the assessee.

1.2 The Ld. AO made two additions in the case: (i) Rs.51,42,318/- by disallowing exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act; and (ii) Rs.16,96,000/-

ITA No.8307/Del/2025 PREM SIKKA as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. At first appellate stage the assessee could get relief on the addition of Rs.51,42,318/- but the addition of Rs.16,96,000/-, allegedly on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank, was sustained.

1.3 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT challenging the addition u/s 69A of the Act.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book and drew our attention to a copy of bank statement (account no.00261000231600 with M/s HDFC Bank). The Ld. AR took pains to point out that the only cash deposits in the bank account amounted to Rs.75,000/- and not the impugned amount as claimed by the Ld. AO. It was the submission that this fact was duly brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) also but no credence was given to the same. The ld. AR duly pointed out the relevant entries in the bank account whereby a cash deposit of Rs.75,000/- over the course of November, 2011 could be clearly seen.

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

3.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is clearly visible that there is only a cash deposit of Rs.75,000/- and not as alleged by the Ld. AO. We also find that the explanation submitted by the assessee has not been duly considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and it is clearly visible that the assessee has a good and

ITA No.8307/Del/2025 PREM SIKKA sufficient justification for the cash deposit of Rs.75,000/- and therefore we direct the deletion of the impugned amount and allow the grounds of the assessee pertaining to the addition u/s 69A of the Act.

4.

In the result, appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13.05.2026 *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 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →