“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

Auraine Botanicals Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

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

ITA 751/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanauraine Botanicals Private Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.22, Sector 18, Gurgaon. Electronic City, Palam Road, Gurgaon – 122 016 (Haryana). (Pan : Aamca8139P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Jain, Ca Ms. Nisha Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 22.08.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

facts of the case by making an addition of INR 41,50,000/- in the income of the assessee, by treating the cash as unexplained money and disregarded evidence of bank withdrawals and cash book and the nature of business of the assessee, requiring expenditure in cash. 5. That ... erred in law and facts in concluding that the addition can be made under section 68 of the Income tax act as unexplained money, inspite of the facts on record of regular withdrawal and usage of cash in the company even in the past for genuine business expenditure

Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi ( Through Legal Heir Mr. Aman Sethi), New Delhi vs. ACIT Cricle-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3670/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi Vs Acit, (Through Legal Heir Mr. Aman Circle-28(1), Sethi), S-541, Greater Kailash New Delhi. Part-Ii, South Delhi, New Delhi-110048. Pan-Abyps3902L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68

been doubted by the Revenue therefore, deduction of the cost incurred by the assessee of INR 1,10,25,000/- cannot be held as unexplained money received by the assessee at the time of sale and thus, addition to this extent made by the AO and upheld by Ld.CIT ... Revenue in the year when the same was paid therefore, entire sale consideration including the purchase cost could not be held as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we directed the AO to delete the addition made towards the purchase cost

Nagendra Singh, Kasganj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Kasganj

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

ITA 234/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmannagendra Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3)(3), House No.115, Goraha, Kasganj, Kasganj. Kanshiram Nagar – 207 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Dqzps5814Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.08.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.15,00,000/- Into His Bank Account Maintained With Gramin Bank Of Aryavart, Goraha, Kasganj & Another Rs.2,50,000/- To Another Account Maintained With Ubi, Railway Road, Kasganj During The Demonetization Period. Since The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Issued To The Assessee To File The Return Of Income For The Ay 2017-18 On Or Before 31.03.2018. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income. A Show-

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Rs.15,00,000/- was accepted, however for the additional deposit of unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions, however

Rajaram Gupta, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Rewa

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

ITA 153/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajaram Gupta V. National Faceless S/O Shri Narayandas Gupta, Assessment Unit Vill- Sidhi Bhari Road, Po & Income Tax Office, Ward- Teh- Hanumana Distt-Rewa 1, Rewa (Mp)-486001. (Mp)-486335. Tan/Pan:Arzpg6948H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 194CSection 69A

issued by AO to the assessee to show cause as to why the credits of Rs.3,75,08,139/- not be treated as his unexplained money in terms of provisions of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and added to his total income. The assessee was further requested ... which includes cash deposits also, lying in the bank accounts of the assessee as detailed above, are treated as unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and added to his total income. Tax on this addition is to be calculated as per provisions

Fung Peng Namchoom, Chowkham vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Digboi

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

ITA 67/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(1)Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 69A

assessment, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the agricultural income of Rs. 34,98,705/- citing lack of proper documentation and treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A, resulting in taxation u/s 115BBE of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the 3. learned

Hiralal Vijawat, Bhawanimandi vs. ACIT / DCIT Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 614/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (VC)For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, SR. DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69C

section 69 of the Act. Similarly, unexplained excess cash of Rs.8,50,003/-and unaccounted excess stock of Rs.32,00,000/- are considered as unexplained money and Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account as per provision of section 69A and 69B of the Act respectively ... Similarly, unexplained excess cash of Rs, 8,50,003/- and unaccounted excess stock of Rs. 32,00,000/- are considered as unexplained money and Amount of investments, etc. not fully disclosed in books of account as per provision of section 69A and 698 of the IT Act respectively. Therefore

Aadi Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 510/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

debit and credit entry of Rs.1,00,00,000/- each in the bank account of the assessee, both of which was considered as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. The addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer is prima facie not found

Kushal Krishna Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1372/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

made in respect of the cash deposits made in the bank account during the period of demonetization treating the same as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case. 3. The addition sustained ... same was also accepted as part of the business income assessed for the year under appeal and therefore, the same cannot be treated as unexplained money for the purpose of section 69A of the Act to make the impugned addition. 5. The Ld. Ld. AO is not justified in invoking

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 37Section 68

However the other essential ingredients of the section such as the burden of proof with regard to the source of the credits or unexplained money, test of satisfaction, are common to section 68 and section 69C and hence the judicial decisions on section 68 will also be relevant for section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S. Shrish Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 5315/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

came in the process nor some of money was credited, only a liability was recorded and therefore, addition under Section 68 on account of unexplained money credits is not correct as already held by the Special Bench Delhi in the case of Manoj Agarwal Vs. DCIT, CC-3, New Delhi

Income Tax Officer, C.R. Building, ITO vs. Sunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4039/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

bullion/jewellery once whenever the purchase consideration is exceeding Rs.2,00,000/-. This has been done to by-pass the Income Tax Statutes and the unexplained money has been camouflaged as sales so as to introduce the unexplained money in the cash-book and then into its banking channel/accounts. This straightway

Ajay Kumar, Hajipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Hajipur

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

ITA 183/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

been treated by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter I.T.A. No.: 183/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajay Kumar. referred to as Ld. 'AO') as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before

Sanapala Bhulakshmi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 405/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 405/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Sanapala Bhulakshmi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 2(1) D.No. 39-18-58 Income Tax Office Tenneti Nagar, Madhavadhara Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam – 530007 Sankaramatam Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam - 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Gsbps6978E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.13,75,000 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained money. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the tax levied by assessing officer u/s 115BBE

Gaytri Devi Sharma, Chomu vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

addition to Credit of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The total credit of Rs. 5,25,000/- was considered as unexplained money as per provision of section 69A of the Act and, accordingly, the assessment was completed as per provision of section 144 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... Gaytri Devi Sharma had also deposited cash of Rs. 50,000/- in SBN in her saving bank A/c No. 21220100005379, which also remains unexplained money for the year under consideration The data analysis of bank statement with Federal Bank, it reveals credit entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition

Kaushal Pravinkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 885/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 270ASection 69A

transactions. Cash deposits of Rs. 56,78,600/- in Kotak Mahindra Bank, including Rs.21,56,500/- deposited during the demonetisation period, were treated as unexplained money under section 69A, taxable u/s 115BBE. In addition, disallowance of Rs. 5,92,275/- being 12.5% of unexplained bank credits was made as unverifiable ... availed. At the same time, we note that the additions made by the AO are substantial and relate to serious issues of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A and disallowance of bank credits. The CIT(A) has not adjudicated these issues on merits. In our considered view, principles of natural justice

Vittal Bandari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 296/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.296/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Vittal Bandari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aikpb2167P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

added the amount of Rs.25,50,000/- seized from the son and Rs.6,10,000/- found from the residence of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.03.2022, determining the total income ... without dislodging the same, the Ld. AO had held the amount of Rs.25.50 lakhs as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. In fact, we find that the Ld. AO has merely confined himself to the recent cash withdrawals from

Kalai Vani Rajan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 774/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.774/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kalai Vani Rajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sai Krishna Apartment, Ward I(6), Brindavanan Road, 3Rd Cross, Salem. Fairlands S.O., Salem 636 016 [Pan:Avxpk9339C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute Legal Grounds Raised In Ground No. 4 & 5 & 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 69A

assessee raised ground Nos. 6 to 9 challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4. Brie facts relating to the case are that the assessee is an individual

Narayanan, Chromepet vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 695/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.695/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Narayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-1, 37/60, Guru Balaji Apts, International Taxation Ward 2(1), First Main Road, New Colony, Chennai. Chromepet, Chennai 600 044. [Pan:Ackpn6481A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 24.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find Paper

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

respond. Therefore, in absence of any details, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of remittances to the tune of ₹.2,59,49,000/- as unexplained money under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee sold an immovable property

Rinoo, Pimpri- Chinchwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 254(1)Section 69A

filing said return for AY 2019-20 realised that entire cash deposit which was deposited on behalf of various customers was added as unexplained money. The notice 2 RINOO issued by assessing officer was not received by the assessee. The assessee was surprised and shattered about knowing such tax demand

Jatin, Karnal vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3853/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhita No. 3853/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 69A

respect to the loan received amounting to Rs. 3,02,500/-. Hence, the same was added in the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Against the above, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has dismissed