Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 68, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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&
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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
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.
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.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.