← All Phrases

“unexplained money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69ASection 69A5,888 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained money is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained money

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

Chuharmal v. CIT
172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

Judgments citing unexplained money

Boutique De Fleur, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 446/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 446/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boutique De Fleur,………………………………..Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 2D, Bentinck Street, Unit No. A, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajfb1035D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 249(2)Section 69A

notice was issued to the assessee asking why total credits of Rs.1,84,63,232/- in its bank account should not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and should not be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act @ 60% on Rs.1

Kalyanasundaravalli Premanandhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 8(2) Che, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/CHNY/2025[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kalyanasundaravalli Premanandhan, The Ito, 52/A1, Amaravathy Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Chennai-600 106. Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹15,30,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the source of such cash deposit, which was duly explained and substantiated by documentary ... nature of the funds was consistently furnished during the assessment and appellate proceedings. However, the AO disregarded the explanation and treated the deposit as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the AO issued notice initially under section 69 and subsequently invoked section

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Nakchhatra Vimleshkumar Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3777/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG. Accordingly, the entire amount of %4,00,69,645/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)]. After ... various judgments also. For the sake of ready reference, his written submissions are reproduced as under: “Ground 1: Addition under Section 69A for Unexplained Money Invested in Penny Stocks The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating that the Appellant failed to substantiate the source of funds

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Nakchhatra Vimleshkumar Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3726/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG. Accordingly, the entire amount of %4,00,69,645/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)]. After ... various judgments also. For the sake of ready reference, his written submissions are reproduced as under: “Ground 1: Addition under Section 69A for Unexplained Money Invested in Penny Stocks The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating that the Appellant failed to substantiate the source of funds

Kitnoriya Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, Barmer vs. ITO, Ward-1, Barmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 821/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

rival submissions and considered the materials on record. Considering the provisions of section 69A, we find that the issue is only related to unexplained money etc. The contention of the Ld. AR that the section 69A of the Act will not be applicable if it is recorded in books

Ayodhya Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 366/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Ayodhya Singh,……..……………………………..Appellant G-1 & 2, Gangotri House, 1 Number Sura Bhawan Area, South Park, Bistupur-831001, Jharkhand [Pan:Fdjps1783K] -Vs.- Assessment Unit,……………………………..…...Respondent National Faceless Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, 5A, Main Road, Besides Ranchi Club Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri P.S. Paul, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 10Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

documents, but the asseseee has not furnished/uploaded requisite details/documents relates to the sources of the abovementioned amount. The ld. Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and taxed under section 115BBE of the Act. On perusal of ITR filed for 2 Ayodhya

Monika Shekhri Mohalla Devi Asthan Noormahal Jalandhar, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Phagwara, Punjab

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act and treated the amount of cash deposit Rs. 17,00,000/- as unexplained money. 6.3 At the appellate stage, the appellant has furnished his written submission in support of his claim. No arguments have been advanced

Rashida Bee, Jaora Choupati vs. CIT(A), Ratlam

ITA 916/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Harpreet Kaur, Bhopal vs. Income-Tax Officer, 5(2), Bhopal

ITA 730/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 69A

assessee from purchaser as per sale-agreement] and treated excess cash deposit of Rs.8,61,000/- [Rs.13,21,000 (-) Rs.4,60,000] as unexplained money u/s 69A. With these adjustments, the AO completed assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success ... cash in the hands of the assessee and remaining worked out as Rs.13,21,000 (–) 4,60,000 = Rs.8,61,000 is treated as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and is taxed u/s 69A of the 'Act'. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.8,61,000/- is made

Akhilesh Kumar Patel, Shahdol vs. Income Tax Officer Dhar, Dhar

ITA 627/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. Medhraj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 429/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Asstt. Commissioner Of V. Medhraj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax G-05, Sky Hi Chambers, Park Road, Range – 1 Hazratganj Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aafcm1276N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R
Section 115BSection 68

auditors or the AO. The withdrawals made by the appellant are verifiable from the bank thus, the same cannot be treated as unexplained money in the hands of the appellant. The appellant submitted that it was regular practice for last several years to withdraw cash nothing new has been done

Parminder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 660/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). It Was Submitted During The Course Of Appellate Proceeding, The Assessee Requested The Ld. Cit(A) To Adjourn The Matter On The Ground That The Assessee Is Contemplating To Avail The Benefit Of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However The Ld. Cit(A) Disregarded The Request & Proceeded To Pass The Ex-Parte Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A(Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

thereafter, the assessment order was passed under section 144 wherein the AO brought to tax an amount of Rs. 27,89,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Parminder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 659/CHANDI/2025[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2025

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). It Was Submitted During The Course Of Appellate Proceeding, The Assessee Requested The Ld. Cit(A) To Adjourn The Matter On The Ground That The Assessee Is Contemplating To Avail The Benefit Of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However The Ld. Cit(A) Disregarded The Request & Proceeded To Pass The Ex-Parte Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A(Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

thereafter, the assessment order was passed under section 144 wherein the AO brought to tax an amount of Rs. 27,89,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Parminder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 658/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). It Was Submitted During The Course Of Appellate Proceeding, The Assessee Requested The Ld. Cit(A) To Adjourn The Matter On The Ground That The Assessee Is Contemplating To Avail The Benefit Of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However The Ld. Cit(A) Disregarded The Request & Proceeded To Pass The Ex-Parte Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A(Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

thereafter, the assessment order was passed under section 144 wherein the AO brought to tax an amount of Rs. 27,89,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

S.G.& Co., Solapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1611/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 69A

Rs.62,23,460/- the excess cash of Rs.8,75,600/- found and admitted by the assessee during the survey action was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act and was ordered to be taxed at special rate as per 3 provisions of section 115BBE ... considered but not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, order u/s 154 was passed and excess cash found during the survey proceedings treated as unexplained money u/s/ 69A of the IT Act and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act. 4. After considering the reply

M/S. Abheek Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 153(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Through this assessment order, the Ld.AO treated an amount of Rs. 9,88,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. The assessee carried this matter in appeal where the matter was remanded back to the Ld. AO as follows: 2 M/s Abhishek Dealtrade Private Limited “6.0 Upon considering

Rengarajan Vivesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-292), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1057/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1057/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rengarajan Vivesh, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.11, Door No.62, Vs. Corporate Ward-2(2) Akshaya Homes, Gurusamy Street, Chennai. Nolambur, Chennai-600 058. [Pan: Aadpv-3688-E] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.S. Hitesh, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. R.S. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 69A

participate in the assessment proceedings by not responding to the statutory notices, the AO made an addition of Rs.34,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and business income @ 8%(Rs.34,37,961/-) on contract receipts of Rs.4,29,74,519/- u/s.194C of the Act, based

Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1022/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sucram Pharmaceuticals Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, H-37-J, 2Nd Floor, Non Corporate Ward 6(4), Manthoppu Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 083. [Pan:Aakcs2196J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(ii)Section 69

assessee failed to prove with any concrete evidence and document, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.1,15,000/- as unexplained money under section 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10. The ld. AR submits that the cash in hand

A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3787/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 69A

through manipulation for pre demonetization period. The Ld.AO thus made addition of the cash deposit of Rs.64,21,000/- made during demonetization period as unexplained money, by evoking provisions of section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT

Kishorkumar Lakhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3688/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3688/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kishorkumar Lakhaji V/S. Income Tax Officer- Prajapati बिाम 32(2)(2) A/101, Krishna Avenue, Room No. 716, 7Th Floor, Shree Krishna Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai 400006 C043, G Block, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipp5132E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv & Ms. Neelam Jadhav राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv & MsFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

17/08/2019. P a g e | 2 ITA No 3688/Mum/2025 AY 2017-18 Kirshorkumar Lakhaji Prajapati II Addition of Rs.11.50,000/- u/s.69A as Unexplained Money 2. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income ... unexplained money without appreciating that amount deposited in the bank account was on account sale transactions, which are properly recorded in the books of account and shown as cash in hand in the books of account wherein the appellant has maintained day to day stock transaction register, hence addition