← 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

Nehal Ramanbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-20140 Nehal Ramanbhai Patel Ito, Ward-(3) Gold Street Pamol, Borsad Vs. Anand. Anand-388 540, Gujarat Pan : Atdpp 4094 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

deposits. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation or verifiable supporting documentation, the Assessing Officer treated the investment of Rs. 26,49,250/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were ... transfers) are all established. The AO has not made any enquiry or brought any adverse material to rebut these facts. Thus, the presumption of unexplained money under section 69A is not attracted. 8.7 We also note that the non-consideration of evidences by the CIT(A), NFAC, appears

Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward- Hingoli, Hingoli

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

ITA 781/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Tax Department, Nfac, Parbhani- 431402. Delhi. Pan : Czcps6546Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

show cause notice dated 14.05.2023. Accordingly the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.51,11,900/- deposited in the impugned account as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Vide order dated 23.05.2023 the Assessing Officer ... income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,34,760/- in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The above assessed income includes unexplained money of Rs.51,11,900/- u/s 69A of the IT Act. 5. Against the above assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before

Shamrao Gopal Benake, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1036/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act determining total income of Rs.2,09,06,834/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act of Rs.1,58,85,877/- (29,89,877 + 1,28,96,000) and business income of Rs.50 ... account of unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the IT Act and addition of Rs. 1,28,96,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the IT Act. Further, the A.O. has observed that there were total credits of Rs.6,31,05,578/- in the account of the appellant

Selvam Baskar, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Salem

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2838/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2838/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Selvam Baskar Income Tax Officer, 118 – Pl Prop; Gomathy Jewellers, Vs. Ward 1(1), Gopal Chetty Street, Salem. Ponnammapet, Salem – 636 003. [Pan: Atjpb5735B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

submissions, the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.20,67,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act stating that the assessee has not explained the cash deposited from 13.11.2016 to 14.12.2016. Aggrieved by the order

Laxmichand Jethalal Dedhia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in

ITA 2433/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

filed an appeal against the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer (A.O.), who made an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), along with an addition of Rs. 75,000/- on account of interest ... alleged unexplained money and Rs.3,000/- as unexplained expenditure related to the brokerage charged by M/s. Evergreen Enterprises. The additions were made in respect of certain cash transaction involving loan advanced by the appellant, which the appellant claims as not undertaken by him. 6.2 The appellant has strongly denied giving

Doctor Bawitlung Zothankima, Aizawl vs. DCIT, Silchar

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

showing transfers to the account of the appellant. Therefore, the nature of these receipts is not conclusively established. This amount may be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act.” 1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1. For that ... erred in law and in facts in making addition of Rs. 12,56,899/- under section 69A as unexplained money on account of deposit in bank account without taking into consideration the submissions made in this regard. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred

Kanaiyalal Labhubhai Narola, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, (2), Surat

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

ITA 816/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

correct as per law because, in this case, the appellant was found to ITA No.816/SRT/2023/AY 2014-15 Kanhaiyalal Labhubhai Narola be the owner of unexplained money (cash) of Rs.3,00,00,000/- in the form of repayment of unaccounted loan and the appellant had not placed any evidence to show ... para 5.5 onwards held that addition u/s 68 was not correct as per law because the appellant was found to be the owner of unexplained money (cash) of Rs.3,00,00,000/- in the form of repayment of unaccounted loan and the appellant had not placed any evidence to show

Hussain Theparambil Faisal, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 520/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hussain Theparambil Faizal .......... Appellant Theparambil, Chalingadu, Kaipamangalam Thrissur 680681 [Pan: Acvpf5761G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2017-18. However, Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetisation Period, The Ito, Ward 2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issued A Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Calling Upon The Appellant To 2 Hussain Theparambil Faizal File Return Of Income. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 142(1) Nor The Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act. In The Circumstances, The Ao Proceeded With Making Best Judgement Assessment By Making Addition Of The Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetisation Period As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019 Passed U/S. 144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

circumstances, the AO proceeded with making best judgement assessment by making addition of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Corcle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 827/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

amount of cash deposited during demonetization period at Rs. 1,53,76,500/- is added to total income of the assessee treated as unexplained money u/s 69A and tax is levied as per section 115BBE of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in the case of Sanjay Kapur ... Trib.) [18-09-2023] decided similar issue. The head notes of the decision are as under- "Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Bank deposit) Assessment year 2017-18 During demonetization period, assessee-society deposited certain sum in its bank account Since assessee didn't respond adequately

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle-Kota, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

amount of cash deposited during demonetization period at Rs. 1,53,76,500/- is added to total income of the assessee treated as unexplained money u/s 69A and tax is levied as per section 115BBE of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in the case of Sanjay Kapur ... Trib.) [18-09-2023] decided similar issue. The head notes of the decision are as under- "Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Bank deposit) Assessment year 2017-18 During demonetization period, assessee-society deposited certain sum in its bank account Since assessee didn't respond adequately

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

confirming the action of ld. AO in making addition of Rs.1,52,364/- u/s 69A made by ld. AO by alleging the same as unexplained money in the hands of assessee arbitrarily. 2.2. That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,52,364/- solely ... respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order. During the assessment proceedings, AO observed that the assessee had unexplained money from F & O trading amounting to Rs. 1,52,364/-. The assessee failed to give a satisfactory reply and provide any required details. Hence

Chiranji Lal Saini, Sikar Rajasthan vs. ITO WD 1, Sikar, Sikar Rajasthan

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1002/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalchiranji Lal Saini, S/O. Shri Girdhari Lal Saini, Bhalan Sadah, Opp. Iti College Saini Nagar, Jaipur Road, Sikar 332 001 Pan No.: Atqps 6306J ......Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

erred in not appreciating that addition of Rs 7,94,48,717/- made under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money is incorrect and bad in law as the SBI bank account numbers 32503591663 and 32735092092 (EMI collection account) pertained to the company Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd (PAN: AACCH1807P

Dharmendra Kumar, Bhanwargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Baran

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

ITA 1322/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CA, (Thru: V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 249(4)

appellant has not filed the return of income and the AO has computed the total income at Rs. 18,23,254/-on account of unexplained money u/s 69A, interest Income and computed the tax on the assessed income which includes the advance tax payable by the appellant as well ... taxable income. As regards the total addition of Rs.16,23,254/- so made by the AO wherein Rs.16,03,000/- is treated as unexplained money in bank account u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.20,254/- is treated as bank interest. It is noted that the assessee filed the bank

Shankarbhai Virabhai Patel, Dahod vs. ITO Ward-1, Dahod

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

ITA 2219/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parag Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 194CSection 44ASection 69ASection 80T

response, this amount, along with the ₹1.33 crore which was received from Shri Harishkumar Patel, amounting to ₹2,92,65,195/-, was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Further, interest income of ₹4,948/- reflected in Form 26AS was also taxed as “income from other sources

Shankarbhai Virabhai Patel, Dahod vs. ITO Ward-1, Dahod

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

ITA 2218/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parag Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 194CSection 44ASection 69ASection 80T

response, this amount, along with the ₹1.33 crore which was received from Shri Harishkumar Patel, amounting to ₹2,92,65,195/-, was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Further, interest income of ₹4,948/- reflected in Form 26AS was also taxed as “income from other sources

Ram Chander, Jhajjar vs. ITO, Ward 72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahfuzur Rahman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 69A

deposits. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation from the Assessee/Appellant, he confirmed the action of the AO in treating such cash deposit as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. In view of the factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute

Nagalakshmi Surekantham Mukku, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 12/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

GVMC portal, the Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 79,19,160/- towards unexplained money. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions ... case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 79,19,160/- made by the AO towards unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that

Varghese Sebastian, Angamaly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 494/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Varghese Sebastian .......... Appellant Moolan House Angamaly P.O., Angamaly, Ernakulam Dist. [Pan: Anxps 5743 C] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Aluva Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena La, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual & E-Filed His Return Of Income On 16/10/2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 17,33,590/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena La, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs 1,78,76,816/- being the cash deposits made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of the sale proceeds of the firm. 3. Being

Daya Shanker Tiwari, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), I T Tower, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Officer. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, made addition of Rs.6 lakhs under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money towards gift received from Sri Pradeep Tiwari on the ground that, the assessee claims to have received a gift of Rs.11 lakhs from ... lakhs, which is gifted by the assessee’s son. Therefore, the short computation of income to the extent of Rs.6 lakhs is treated as unexplained money and added back under section 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned

Khajamoinuddin Mahammad, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Warangal

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

ITA 571/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

FirstAppellate Authority is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs.1,03,51,793/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of 1.T. Act. 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making ... addition of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of L.T. Act. 4.The appellant prays for leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2.1 The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal as under : I. The appellant