“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

Monalisa Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 184/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessee could not respond to the notice within one day and the AO had passed the order treating ₹10,20,000 as the unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. It was a submission that the Learned CIT (A) had also confirmed the same

Monalisa Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 183/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Sanjay Kumar, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. Assessing Office Faceless Assessment Unit, New Delhi

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

ITA 799/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

assessee determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,16,08,291/- and made addition of Rs.3,16,08,291/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed I.T.A. No.799/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 appeal against the assessment order

Abhishek Singh, Unnao vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-2(4), Unnao

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

ITA 789/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250(6)

determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.54,85,000/- and made addition of Rs.54,85,000/- on account of unexplained money. Being aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal

Mithilesh Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 974/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 974/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Shri Mithilesh Singh, The Ito, R/O H.No. B12, Brs Nagar, Ward 6(1), Vs Pwssb Colony, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Dfwps1033D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None (Adjournment Application ) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Physical Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application )For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 271Section 69A

read with section 115BBE. Cash deposits of Rs.8453500 made during the relevant FY including the demonetization period, was rightly treated by the AO as unexplained money u/s69A. The above amount is from undisclosed sources, tax will be charged on the income as per provision of section 115BBE. 3. Ground no.4

Jethanand H Varandani (HUF), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2521/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Jethanand H Varandani (Huf) Vs Ito, Ward-29 (1), Kolkata/ Flat No.101, Block-A2, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Brindavan Gardens 98, Department, Mof, Goi Christopher Road, Kolkata-700046 Pan No. : Aaghj 8544 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had During The Assessment Year 2017-2018 & The Impugned Assessment Year 2018- 2019 Sold Saree To M/S Faithful Cloth Merchants Pvt. Ltd.. The Total Sales Was To An Extent Of Rs.30,13,950/-, However, It Was The Submission That The Ao Has Taken Figure At Rs.30,11,125/-. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Had Sold During The Assessment Year 2017-2018 Sarees To An Extent Of Rs.15,08,700/- & During The Impugned Assessment Year Sarees Were Sold At Rs.15,02,250/-. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To Page 19 Of The 2 Paper Book Which Is Ledger Account Of The Assessee In The Books Of M/S Faithful Cloth Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Which Reads As Follows :-

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 69A

bridge slips provided, the Assessing Officer treated the sale to M/s Faithful Cloth Merchants Pvt. Ltd. as bogus transaction and treated the same as unexplained money received by the assessee. It was the submission that the transactions having been proved, insofar as M/s Faithful Cloth Merchants Pvt. Ltd. having confirmed ... submissions. At the outset, a perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has treated the amount at Rs.30,11,125/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The turnover of the assessee in the impugned assessment year is at Rs.15,02,250/-. The turnover of the assessee

Ganesh Mahato, Durgapur, South Parganas vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax Circle 26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with cost of Rs

ITA 182/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.182/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganesh Mahato…...……………………..…………………....Appellant Vill. Durgapur, Po- Jaynagar, Majilpur, South 24 Parganas-743337. [Pan: Bgppm6996K] Vs. Acit, Circle-26(1), Kolkata ……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,76,470/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued But She Assessee Remained Non-Compliant. The Assessing Officer Observed That Total Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts With Bank During The Period April 2016 To March 2017 Amounted To Rs.2,00,80,900, Whereas The Assessee Had Shown Only Rs.90,20,200 As Sales. The Excess Deposit Of Rs.1,10,60,700 Was Treated As Unexplained Money Under Section 69A & Added To The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

whereas the assessee had shown only Rs.90,20,200 as sales. The excess deposit of Rs.1,10,60,700 was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A and added to the income of the assessee. I.T.A. No.182/Kol/2024 Ganesh Mahato Assessment was completed under Section 144 determining total income at Rs.1

E 2596 Mutlur Primary Agnl Co-Op Credit Society, Chidambaram vs. ITO Ward 2, Cuddalore

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

ITA 716/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:716/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 E-2596 Mutlur Primary Agrl Co-Op Ito, Credit Society, Vs. Ward -2, E-2596, B.Mutlur, B.Mutlur-S.O, Cuddalore. Chidambaram – 608 502. [Pan:Aaaae-4682-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

deposit and withdrawals made during the A.Y. 2018-19 to the total income for the year under consideration u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act as unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltde, Chikkamangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkamagaluru

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

ITA 831/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

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

effective issue raised by the assessee is that the revenue authorities not justified holding the cash deposit of Rs. 4.63 crore as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and that too without providing an opportunity to present its case. Hence, the matter be set aside ... authorities below were not justified in treating the amount of ₹4,63,00,000/- deposited by the assessee into the CDCC Bank as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. He explained that the deposits represented the repayment of Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loans by the agriculturist members

Shruthi Kishore, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru

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

ITA 550/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Upadhya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69ASection 80T

impractical and unreasonable. Cash Deposit of Rs 10,00,000/- 3. The Learned AO erred in treating the 10,00,000 cash deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, despite the appellant's clear explanation that the amount was received as wedding gifts. Wedding gifts are exempt ... assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹10 lakhs by the treating the cash deposit as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and erred in not providing the deduction under section 80TTA of the Act for ₹10,000/-. 3.1 The facts

Sri Shivakumara Swamy Credit Coop Society Limited, Davanagere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 474/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

dated 05th September 2019. However, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 05th 6. September 2019 proposing to treat the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 7. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted that the deposits were made ... bank passbook, which is not considered a book of account maintained by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Consequently, he taxed the amount under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment under section

ITO-24(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nalapad Zain Apparel Exports, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5870/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Govind Prasad

Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69ASection 69C

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,21,98,800/- made on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. S.S. Jewellery, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4652/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 74(1)

stock from head office Mumbai to branch Bangalore and, therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act do not apply, which read as under:- “[Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Mumai vs. Divesh Prakashchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4651/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 74(1)

S S Jewellery, Zaveri Bajar, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4542/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 74(1)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai. vs. Sarvapriya Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No 3108/Mum/2023 is dismissed

ITA 3108/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedeputy Commissioner Of Vs Saarrthi Reality & Infra Llp, 2Nd Floor, Geetai Sankul, Paud Road, Income-Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai Kothrud, Pune, Pin-411037 Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Pan: Acmfs8187L Mumbai-400021 Appellant Respondent - A.Y. 2019-20 - A.Y. 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra & Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishore Dhule – CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

WhatsApp message, an addition of Rs. 3,58,00,000/- was made under section 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money received on account of the sale of three flats. 4) In the course of Assessment Proceedings, Appellant LLP has submitted complete details of sale of flats

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai. vs. Saarrthi Realty and Infra Limited Liability Partnership, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No 3108/Mum/2023 is dismissed

ITA 3106/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra & Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishore Dhule – CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

Brij Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2011/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanbrij Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 15, M – 117, Guru Harkishan Nagar, New Delhi. Paschim Vihar, West Sunder Vihar, New Delhi – 110 087. (Pan : Aanpk3701B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 153CSection 260ASection 69A

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made of Rs.6,00,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that provision of section 69A of the Act is not applicable being the appellant

Kailashben Shanubhai Prajapati, Bharuch, Gujarat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Bharuch

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

ITA 805/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69A

under section 69A of Income Tax Act. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer has misdirected himself in arriving to conclusion that the appellant is having unexplained money of Rs. 588000/-without having any material on record. Kailashben Shanubhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2013-14 - 2– 4. The Learned Assessing Officer

Rahulkumar Bharatbhai Surti, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rahulkumar Bharatbhai Surti, Vs. The Ito, 15-16, Shyam Residency, Ward – 2(3)(3), Kumbhariya Gam, Kumbhariya, Surat Surat - 395010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Exhps8576M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shaunak K. Zaveri, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the AO in by accepting the addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.11,52,700/- without considering the documents and evidences which is incorrect