When Mr Bussi deposited about Rs 11 lakh cash into his parents’ ICICI Bank account in Delhi during demonetisation, he had no idea that he would soon get a notice from the Income Tax department for this transaction. After fighting for nearly six years, he finally won in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Delhi) and had the notice cancelled.
As per the submission, Mr Bussi, a salaried employee who lives with his wife and kids in Georgia, US, had sent this money to his parents through several transactions via MoneyGram between 2014 and 2016. His parents withdrew the money from the bank and kept the cash at home. Mr Bussi was at his parents’ house in Delhi on November 8, 2016, when demonetisation was announced. Upon realising so much cash at home, Mr Bussi deposited it in his parents’ bank account. The dispute started there. The Income Tax Department flagged this transaction, and subsequently Mr Bussi was issued a tax notice, and this dispute dragged on for years.
On November 20, 2020, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or CIT A, heard Mr Bussi’s case and ruled against him. He then filed an appeal before ITAT Delhi. On April 8, 2026, he won the case in ITAT Delhi.
The issue involved in these legal proceedings is the deposit of cash during the demonetisation period amounting to Rs 11,18,500 in an ICICI Bank account in India, the details of which are as below:
In his affidavit, Mr Bussi said that he is an NRI living in the US with his family and has no source of income, either business or other income, in India except interest on a bank account. He also said that neither his wife nor any of his children reside in India have any income from India. Thus, there is a valid explanation for the cash lying with his parents in their Delhi house.
Mr Bussi said that the source of this cash is his remittances from past years. He also gave evidence of his money remittances which were sent through MoneyGram from the US to India. He said that during FY14, FY15, FY16, and FY17 he had visited India several times, and these dates can also be reconciled from his passport, as thus there is no reason for this cash to be not genuine.
Mr Bussi said that his elderly parents may require financial support for unforeseen needs, and he considers it his moral obligations to support them.
The Income Tax Department said that the income tax officer doesn’t believe him, and also the fact that Rs 11.18 lakh was available as cash with his parents, and this amount is from the money sent by him from the US.
During the assessment proceedings, the source of cash was provided to the income tax officer; however, it was not accepted. The income tax officer, in one of the reasons as stated in the assessment order, had stated that Bussi’s salary slip from the US, which was submitted as evidence, doesn’t clearly define his job designation.
Bussi told ITAT Delhi that he had attached this document containing his designation copy in his affidavit.
ITAT Delhi analysis and discussion
ITAT Delhi gave this judgement on April 8, 2026 (I.T.A No.2171/Del/2023).
ITAT Delhi said that they have carefully considered the case and Mr Bussi’s affidavit and felt that the benefit of presumption has to be given to him since the totality of facts would suggest that the impugned amount (Rs 11.15 lakh) would be from disclosed sources and aged parents would not be expected to be alert about maintaining proper records of the money available with them.
ITAT Delhi said that they find that the income tax officer has not indicated any other source of income, except the remittances from abroad, of the parents or even Bussi’s.
Order:
● In light of this the assessee deserves relief on the impugned addition, which is directed to be deleted.
● Regarding ITA No. 2171, since the quantum addition has been deleted, hence, this appeal would not survive for any further adjudication. 5. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.
● Order pronounced in the open court on 08.04.2026
Chartered Accountant Priyal Goel Jain, Partner and NRI Tax Expert, Dinesh Aarjav & Associates said that this ITAT Delhi ruling marks a significant and pragmatic development in the taxation landscape for Non-Resident Indians.
Goel says that this ruling rightly underscores that bona fide remittances made by NRIs, along with accumulated savings held with family members in India, cannot be summarily characterised as unexplained income merely on account of imperfect documentation.
Goel says: “Importantly, the decision reiterates that the onus lies on the tax authorities to demonstrate the existence of an alternative undisclosed source before invoking the rigours of Sections 68/69 or the punitive provisions of Section 115BBE.”
aniltikotekar4sme.com 