ITAT Deletes ₹11.18 Lakh Demonetization Addition: NRI’s Cash Deposit Accepted as Genuine US Remittance [Read Order]
This ruling brings clarity to how genuine foreign remittances and family‑held cash during demonetization can be treated under the Act when supported by PAN, KYC, and verifiable documentary evidence.
![ITAT Deletes ₹11.18 Lakh Demonetization Addition: NRI’s Cash Deposit Accepted as Genuine US Remittance [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/26/2134561-itat-demonetization-nri-cash-deposit-us-remittance-taxscan.webp "ITAT Deletes ₹11.18 Lakh Demonetization Addition: NRI’s Cash Deposit Accepted as Genuine US Remittance [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted an addition of ₹11.18 lakh made on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation that the money represented genuine remittances brought from the United States and kept with his elderly parents in India, supported by PAN,...
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted an addition of ₹11.18 lakh made on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation that the money represented genuine remittances brought from the United States and kept with his elderly parents in India, supported by PAN, KYC, MoneyGram receipts, and passport evidence of visits.
The assessee, Arun Bussi, had deposited ₹11,18,500 in his ICICI Bank account at Jor Bagh, New Delhi, between 21 November and 3 December 2016. The Assessing Officer treated the deposits as unexplained money under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and invoked Section 115BBE to tax the amount at a higher rate.
During the proceedings, Bussi submitted an affidavit explaining that the cash represented funds he had brought from the United States over several years and handed to his elderly parents in India for their medical and household needs. He produced MoneyGram transfer receipts, U.S. bank statements, and passport entries showing his visits to India between FY 2013‑14 and FY 2016‑17.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had no business or other income in India apart from bank interest and that the Assessing Officer had not identified any alternate source of unexplained funds. It held that the deposits were from disclosed sources and that the explanation was consistent with the documentary evidence and the assessee’s NRI status.
Rejecting the Revenue’s contention, the Bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member) ruled that the benefit of presumption must be extended to the assessee, noting that aged parents could not be expected to maintain detailed cash records.
The Tribunal deleted the entire addition of ₹11.18 lakh and held that the appeal under Section 154 concerning the application of Section 115BBE did not survive, as the quantum addition itself stood removed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
