IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5456/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

DCIT, Central Circle 26, vs. Lalit Kumar Taluja, Delhi. 1376-P, Palam Road, S.O. Gurgaon, Gurgaon – 122 015 (Haryana).

(PAN: ABKPT5338B)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri KVSR Krishna, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing : 19.01.2026 Date of Order : 15.04.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM :

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)]

dated 28.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2. Brief facts of the case are, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 27.11.2019 at the business and residence premises of Oriental Group of companies in the case of Shri Amarjit Bakshi, Shri Kanwaljit Bakshi, Ms.

Amrita Bakshi, Shri Sanjit Bakshi, M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Oriental Tollway Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sweta Estates Pvt. Ltd.. Search was also conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, Shri Lalit Kumar Taluja. During the course of search, incriminating documents were found and seized. The cases were centralized. Accordingly, notices were issued to the assessee. In response, assessee submitted his return of income on 09.01.2021 declaring income of Rs.18,39,344/-. Subsequently, notices under section 143(2) and 142 (1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The AO observed that assessee derived income from salary. During the course of search action at Locker No.75, HDFC Bank, Tower A, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon, in that case of the assessee cash of Rs.99,98,000/- was found and seized. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the addition was made in the hands of the assessee and tax was charged u/s 115BBE of the Act.

3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.

CIT (A)-29, New Delhi. Before ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed detailed submissions and in the submissions, it was submitted that the group company which has filed application before the Settlement Commission and owned up the above cash found in the locker owned by the assessee and settled the dispute in the Settlement Commission. In this regard, detailed order of Settlement commission was filed before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) forwarded the report to the AO to file a remand report. After considering the remand report dated 22.10.2024, he deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved with the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

“1. Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.99,98,000/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act.

2. that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in placing undue reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble Interim Board of Settlement (IBS), despite the fact that the assessee was not a party to the settlement proceedings and had not filed any application before the IBS.”

5. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice page 16 of the First Appellate order and referred to the remand report submitted by the AO and further submitted that ld. CIT (A) placed reliance on the order passed by Interim Board of Settlement despite the fact that assessee was not a party to the settlement proceedings and had not filed any application before the IBS. She heavily relied on the findings of the AO.

6. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice page 18 of the Settlement Commission order wherein Sweta Estate Pvt. Ltd. and other companies owned up the cash seized from the Locker No.75 maintained at HDFC Bank which was owned by the assessee. The group has specifically declared the abovesaid ca