SUNIL AMBALAVELIL RAJU,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. ITO, WARD - 60(5), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1123/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member)1 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 held that the assessee's deposits, including those from an NRE savings account with Yes Bank and other accounts with Canara Bank and ICICI Bank, could not be treated as unexplained. Reliance was placed on the case law Nitin Mavji Vekariya Vs. ITO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arises against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions treating deposits amounting to Rs. 2,51,90,728/- as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the deposits made by the assessee, including those from an NRE account, are unexplained and liable for addition under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 68,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)-43, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024–25/1071769877(1) dated 01.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant sole substantive ground is directed against both the learned lower authorities respective findings treating his deposits amounting to Rs.2,51,90,728/- as unexplained, in

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. Suffice to say, the impugned addition of Rs.2,51,90,728/- represents the assessee’s deposits of Rs.51,7988/- with interest of Rs.1,798/- thereupon, time deposit of Rs.1,00,30,000/- in M/s Yes Bank, Rs.1,50,06,632/- in M/s ICICI Bank and Rs.1,00,500/- in Canara Bank account; respectively. The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that since the assessee has failed to plead and prove source thereof all along, the same deserves to be upheld as unexplained u/s 68 & 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

5.

That being the case, we find merit in the assessee’s case against the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that he had been maintaining an NRE savings account with M/s Yes Bank which saw a credit of Rs.10,403,622 followed by withdrawal by way of a new FD to the tune of Rs.10,030,000 on 12.02.2018. The factual position is hardly any different regarding the other remaining deposits and investments as well maintained with M/s Canara Bank and ICICI Bank (supra). The Revenue could not pinpoint even a single cash deposit in assessee’s NRE savings account maintained in his name being a Sunil Ambalavelil Raju non-resident. Case law Nitin Mavji Vekariya Vs. ITO (2024) 461 ITR 18 (Guj.) holds that such investments made from a non- resident assessee’s NRE account could not be treated as unexplained ones. We thus accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground to delete the impugned addition in light of the foregoing facts and case law.

6.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →