Sahil Sikka vs ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Sahil Sikka, filed an income return for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,13,820/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the examination of limited issues of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 20,25,500/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained income. The assessee filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, which was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,25,500/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 4. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in ignoring the evidences produced before him by the appellant during the appeal proceedings.
• 5. Whether the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of Contemporary jurisprudence.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2008-09Allowed

• ITA Nos. 3263 & 3264/Del/2024

  Delhi bench

• PRAHLAD SINGH, VS. PCIT, ROHTAK

  DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Manak Chand Agarwal vs. ITO, Ward 53(1), New Delhi

  Delhi bench

• Premlata Santosh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Laxmanji Khodaji Solanki (Thakor) vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench