PALASH AMBARNATH GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 06.10.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 by CIT(A) Ahmedabad-13 (for short CIT(A)" upholding the addition of Rs.18,00,000/- towards cash deposit in ICICI Bank Account No. 182701075223 made by A.O. as unexplained income u/s 69A is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating fully and properly the facts and circumstances in which the impugned cash was available with the appellant for depositing in bank account. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed sufficient opportunity to appellant to collect and produce necessary evidence/documents in support of the aforesaid explanation which was difficult due to lapse of time and stay at USA but when he came to India he produced all available evidence.

The assessee is a non-resident Indian, therefore not filed return of income for AY 2017-18. As per the information/verification of the data, it was found that substantial cash deposits were made during demonetization period during demonetization period amounting to Rs.18,00,000/- held with ICICI Bank, Ahmedabad. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was issued on 13.02.2018, which was served upon the assessee. The assessee did not file income. Since the assessee has not filed any details the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short “Ld. AO”) issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the ICICI Bank related to credit entries including cash deposits. The Ld. AO proceeded on the basis of section 144 of the Act as the assessee has not responded and thus made addition of Rs.8,13,369/- in respect of amount received from policy with HDFC Life Insurance Co-operative Ltd. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.18,00,000/- towards cash deposits during demonetization period. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.1,69,845/- in respect of interest earned from ICICI Bank. Thus three additions were made u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee thereby confirming the addition of Rs.18,00,000/-.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the assessee has given the details explaining that the assessee from time to time visited India and was carrying the foreign currency/ foreign 2

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue submitted that the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) despite giving several notices the assessee chose not to respond the notices. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is involving in social activities in the US and also while visiting India was carrying the cash component in forex which was converted into Indian currency. The assessee has given the details of foreign exchange cash memo, which categorically mentions that while visiting India the assessee was carrying substantial cash in India. At the time of demonetization the assessee was not in India but the remaining cash of his prior visits were with his representative and therefore the same was deposited in the bank account when the demonetization was declared. These aspects were not taken into account by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the addition made by the Ld. AO is not justified.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2026