Piyush Bavanjibhai Viradia Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, arose from an assessment order dated 24.09.2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2020–21. The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian, was subjected to additions of ₹1.50 crore on account of unexplained time deposits in an HDFC Bank account and ₹7,26,547 as unexplained credits in a Kotak Mahindra Bank account. These additions were initially proposed in a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) due to lack of explanation from the assessee, and subsequently confirmed after the Dispute Resolution Panel rejected the assessee’s objections.
Before the DRP, the assessee had explained that the ₹1.50 crore deposits were sourced from funds held in an NRE account where income earned outside India was deposited. Bank statements were submitted to support this claim. However, the DRP rejected these statements on the ground that they were generated from the bank’s website and did not bear official stamp or signature, thereby lacking legal sanctity.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that being a non-resident based in the USA, it was difficult to obtain authenticated bank statements during earlier proceedings. The assessee now produced duly stamped bank statements obtained from the bank to substantiate the source of deposits.
