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

ITA 1123/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sunil Ambalavelil Raju against the order of the CIT(A)-43, Delhi, which upheld the assessment order treating his deposits amounting to Rs.2,51,90,728 as unexplained under sections 68, 69A, and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deposits were made in various banks including Yes Bank, ICICI Bank, and Canara Bank. The primary legal issue was whether these deposits could be considered unexplained, given that they were made into the assessee's NRE accounts. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the relevant case law, decided in favor of the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831832 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Nitin Mavji Vekariya Vs. ITO (2024) 461 ITR 18 (Guj.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANAV YADAV
• Section: 147; 144; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member ITA No. 1123/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sunil Ambalavelil Raju, Ambalavelil house, Konaalu Post, 574 229, Kadaba Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka-574229 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-60(5), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHIPR1912M Assessee by : Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 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”). 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1123/Del/2025 Sunil Ambalavelil Raju 2 assessment order dated 22.03.2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1123/Del/2025 Sunil Ambalavelil Raju 3 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. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 21/01/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "