← 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

Sulphi Sainudheen Sunju, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmabefore Shri Inturi Rama Raoandshri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 69A

time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the revenue treated the cash deposits of Rs.21,27,000/- made during the demonetization periods as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and this is not correct since from 08.11.2016, the assessee had cash balance of Rs.927755/- as per books

Sulphi Sainudheen Sunju, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmabefore Shri Inturi Rama Raoandshri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 69A

time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the revenue treated the cash deposits of Rs.21,27,000/- made during the demonetization periods as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and this is not correct since from 08.11.2016, the assessee had cash balance of Rs.927755/- as per books

Poladpur Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Sahkari Patphedhi Maryadit Poladpur Shik, Poladpur, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1457/PUN/2025[2016 - 17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

from the assessee’s side. Eventually, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.1.24 crore as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution by holding

Md Parwez Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 839/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

disclosed the said bank account in his return of income and paid appropriate taxes on the transactions. Therefore, the alleged cash deposits are not unexplained money as the appellant has recorded those deposits in his books of accounts 5. For that accounting same transactions in the books of account

Govindasamy Baskaran, Namakkal vs. ITO Ward 1, Namakkal

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

ITA 720/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 720/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Govindasamy Baskaran, Income Tax Officer, 163-C9, R. Gopal Complex, Vs. Ward 1, Satyam Agencies Namakkal. Salem Road, Namakkal – 637 001. [Pan:Aitpb-3941-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 144Section 69A

during the demonetization period. The assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings and hence the AO made an addition of Rs.52,26,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, based on the material evidence available on records and passed an order u/s.144

Ponraj, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 8(5), Chennai

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 714/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ponraj, Income Tax Officer, No. 307, W Block, Vs. Non Corp, Ward 8(5), C Sector, 20Th Street, Chennai. Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 101. [Pan:Avlpp-6598-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

perusal of the documents, the AO was not convinced and made an addition of entire credits in the bank of Rs.60,38,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, based on the material evidence available on records and passed an order u/s.144

Harish Ramchandra Joshi(HUF), Hubli vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Hubli

The appeal are allowed

ITA 281/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

view that the addition of Rs.1,50,64,500 made u/s. 69A of the Act on account of addition of unexplained money is devoid of merit. Therefore, reversing the order of the ld. lower authorities, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. Accordingly ground Nos.1

Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2529/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Gokul, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 154Section 250

deposited by the assessee in his fiduciary capacity as Depot Manger in the account of the Government depot bank account cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee and accordingly we direct the AO the delete the entire addition of Rs.92

Bhatia Medicos, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-(3)1_, Jalandhar

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

ITA 688/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. Anil Miglani, Adv
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

credit entries of Rs.19,590/- which in total comes to Rs.25,98,590/- treated as deemed 5 I.T.A. No. 688/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 unexplained money u/s 69A by the Ld. AO is hereby confirmed on merit also and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed

Jagsir Singh, Village Virkkhera, Malout vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 479/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

that the AO did not consider the submissions of the assessee and wrongly made the addition of Rs. 12,72,000/- treating it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The contention of the assessee is considered and my findings are as under: 4 I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2024 Assessment Year

Sayed Hilal, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range VI, Lucknow

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

ITA 300/LKW/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasayed Hilal V. Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Nawab Market, Income Tax Range-Vi Musaibganj, Lucknow-226003. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Abyph7272E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 69A

restricting the amount of Rs. 1,92,632/- against Rs. 27,47,815/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing

Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1115/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1115/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shakeel Abdul Azeez V The Income Tax Officer, Mohammad, S Ward-1(1), Jalgaon. Kachchi Chawl, Indira Nagar, Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon-425001. Maharashtra. Pan: Byfpm1596K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay V Kawdia – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

treating the entire cash deposits in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case and submisions on record. 3) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned ... quashed. 1. The AO erred in treating the entire cash deposits in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co operative Credit Society Ltd as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case. 1. Appellant craves the permission to add amend modify alter revise substitute delete

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai

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

ITA 2830/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2830/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2019-20) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Mehta Emporium Of Income Tax- Central बिधम Jewellers Circle 8(3), Mumbai 101, Mehta Arch, S.V. Road, Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Opp. Natraj Market, Malad Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai 400064 Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfm2962N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Devendra Jain रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69A

appellant. 21. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of Section 69A of the Act to make aforesaid addition, which is reproduced below: 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

Shushil Kumar Gautam, Gabhana Aligarh vs. Assessing Officer 4(1)(1), Aligarh

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

ITA 4/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 30Section 44ASection 69A

assessee had not submitted any explanation to contradict the finding of the Assessing Officer, confirmed the addition of Rs.83,46,879/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of deduction claimed at Rs.3,11,134/-. 5. Aggrieved with

Dayaram Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Shankar Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

evident from the aforesaid, the A.O had made addition u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to unexplained money i.e. cash deposits of Rs.29.76 lacs made with HDFC Bank. The entire trail of examination by the A.O is with regard to the nature ... cash deposits. The correct provision for addition and bringing the amount to tax should have been Section 69A of the Act i.e. unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article etc. whereas, in this case, the A.O has invoked Section 69 i.e. unexplained investment. There is nothing emanating from

Rupalkumar Kantilal Shah, Mandvi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 56/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rupalkumar Kantilal Shah Vs. Cit(A), Delhi Harihant Kt Shah Road, Sheth Wali Delhi – 110001 Street, Na Vapora, Mandvi - 370465 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoyps3626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 06.12.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section (U/S.) 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 27.11.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts In Not Considering The Regularity & Consistency Of Business Even Though The Same Has Been Acknowledged In The Order 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts In Not Considering The Evidence Furnished By Your Appellant During The Course Of The Proceedings. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A To Determine & Tax Income In The Hands Of Your Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246A(1)(a)Section 69A

which addition of Rs. 20,64,950/- was made out of which Rs. 18,95,420/- was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the act and Rs. 1,69,531/- as commission income of agency business of milk. The appellant is aggrieved with the additions made in while assessing

Danda Nagendra Kumar, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

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

ITA 306/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08/07/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee had explained the reasons that prevented him in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paras from the said affidavit are extracted as under:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cash deposits, the Ld. AO did not accept the submission of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 63,53,788/- towards unexplained money under the head “income from other sources”. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 71,31,300/- and passed

Barigala Saroja, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 472/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

total cash deposits made in bank accounts of the assessee during the year to the tune of Rs. 3,66,86,930/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and made the addition vide the assessment order dated 31/10/2019 passed U/s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Lalji Yadav, Vs. Ito-1(2), 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Lucknow (New) Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) Levied By The Ito, Ward-9(1)(1), Lucknow Dated 27.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Giving Rise To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, Has Been Set Aside By The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Vide Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Ita No. 448/Lkw/2024, Restoring The Matter To The Assessing Officer For Passing The Assessment Order Afresh, The Impugned Order Dated 09.10.2024 Passed By Ld. "Cit(A)" As Well As Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(D) Do Not Survive & Consequently The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. Because The Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

cash deposits of Rs.1,81,48,000/- and other credit entries appearing in the bank account, of Rs.1,72,19,575/-, was unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and he, therefore, added the same back to the income of the assessee. He also initiated penalty proceedings

Hardik Jagdishkumar Thakkar, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Palanpur

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

ITA 426/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhardik Jagdishkumar Thakkar, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shivaji Park Society, Ward-3, Dhanera, Palanpur. Banaksantha-385310. [Pan :Agypt5046 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18 .07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A

erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 31,02,330/- made u/s 69A of the Act being allege unexplained money without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 2. Without prejudice to above, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and facts in taxing the income ... cash deposits are out of the regular trading business of namkeen and other products, we hold no addition is called for on account of unexplained money. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 18.07.2025 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL