“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

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 453/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

cannot override the requirement u/s.69 of the Act, which mandates the AO to establish: That the assessee was in possession of unexplained money;  That such money was not recorded in the books of account;  and That the assessee failed to offer a satisfactory explanation.  25. The Revenue has failed ... cannot override the requirement u/s.69 of the Act, which mandates the AO to establish: That the assessee was in possession of unexplained money;  That such money was not recorded in the books of account;  and That the assessee failed to offer a satisfactory explanation.  71. Therefore, in our considered opinion

Nt Manikanden, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Madurai

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nt Manikanden, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6-1-95, Moovendar Nagar, Main Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Road, Viswanathapuram, Madurai. Krishnapuram, Madurai 625 014. [Pan:Adlpn0939R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Surat For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 69Section 69A

lease agreements. The Assessing Officer did not accept the said submissions and proceeded to add an amount of ₹.16,50,000/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... order of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Panimayam Jesuraja, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1318/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1317 & 1318/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Panimayam Jesuraja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 55, Kallusanthu Aranthangi, Circle 2(1), Radhanallur B.O., Trichy/Tanjore. Pudukottai 614 616. [Pan:Auppj9253R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit & Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.03.2025 & 19.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT &

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

ICICI bank account from various entities. Since the assessee could not explain with documentary evidences, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, on verification of the ITR filed by the assessee

Panimayam Jesuraja, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1317/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT &

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Ramesh Mangilal, Kolathur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 10(3), Nungambakkam

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

ITA 1050/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1050/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Mangilal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 8, Ayyappa Nagar Extension, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Vinayagapuram, Kolathur, Chennai. Chennai 600 099. [Pan:Agvpr4889B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Arihanth Jain, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Arihanth Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 by treating the cash deposit to an extent of ₹.1,40,28,200/- as unexplained money under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Incometax Officer, Thriuvallur vs. Gt60 Arungulam Primary Agri Cooperative Credit Society, Tiruttani

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

ITA 2781/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2781/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Gt60 Arungulam Primary Agri Ward 1, Cooperative Credit Society, Tiruvallur. No. 1, Periya Theru, Thumbikulam Village, Thalavedu Post & Taluk, Tiruvallur 631 212. [Pan: Aabag2568F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Malar Mannan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 24 Days. The Ito, Ward 1, Tiruvallur Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Malar Mannan, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

cash deposits and withdrawals with the information on record and completed the assessment by making additions towards cash deposits of ₹.10,24,090/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and withdrawals at ₹.1,04,00,501/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved ... account and further, all these transactions have been duly recorded in the books of account. Hence, the above said deposits cannot be considered as "unexplained money" in the hands of the assessee." Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble ITAT BENGALURU "C" BENCH, BENGALURU in the case

Abhay Hargovindbhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 17/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 17/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Abhay Hargovindbhai Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 305, Dwarkeshdham,B/H. Samudra 1(3), Jamnagar Sales, Rajnagar, Aerodram Road, 1St Floor, Taranjali Building, Pn Jamnagar 361006 Marg, Aubpp7196D Jamnagar 361008 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 08/11/2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 26/11/2019, U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 1

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 120(5)Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 40,16,900/- by considering the cash deposited in bank account as alleged unexplained money u/s. 69A and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee ... period as well as during the year under consideration in his bank account No. 18940100010833 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Khodiyar Colony, Jamnagar as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the year under consideration. Accordingly, addition

Virendra Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (Th. VC)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

records relied upon were given to the assessee and thereafter the lower authority taken a view that the income on account of unexplained money is required to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. As regards the share of property and payment of cash he submitted that the cash

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Jaipur, Highcourt Circle vs. Late Vandana Agarwal Through Legal Heir Sh. Nishit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1237/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

cash deposits are out of withdrawals from HDFC Bank Account, it can be concluded that in the absence of any proof, cash deposits represent unexplained money of the assessee within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. There is a possibility that the amount of cash withdrawn from HDFC ... that 8 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, amounting to Rs.3,41,64,000/-is remained as unexplained money. From the above it is crystal clear that the assessee has received Rs. 3,41,64,000/- from her unexplained/undisclosed sources and thereafter deposited

Late Sureshgir Rep. L/R Vijaya Devi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderaad

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

ITA 350/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar J. Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69A

source for the deposits, the Assessing Officer treated the entire deposits of Rs.24,30,830/- as unexplained and brought to tax as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned

Jagdish Ghusabhai Kachhdiya Legal Heir of the Late Shri Ghusabhai Khodabhai Kachhadiya, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3424/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

assessment order u/s. 153C of the Act dated 20.03.2024, determining total income at Rs. 1,37,92,750/-, after making an addition on unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1,29,64,592/- for the reason that the assessee had failed to substantiate

Umesh Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 2566/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 09.07.2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

being the best judgment assessment, determining the total income at Rs. 59,40,580/- after making additions of Rs. 33,78,400/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and Rs. 25,62,182/- under the head Income from Business and Profession. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/revenue is dismissed

ITA 4462/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Pacific Development Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Corporation Limited, New Delhi Ground Floor42, Pacific Mall Najafgarh Road, Khyala Phase-I, West Delhi Pin: 1100 18 Pan No. Aaacn3524H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CA & Shri NeerajFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee in its return of income. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,88,13,356/- is made to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, as this amount remains unexplained and are out-of-books of receipts in cash. The tax is payable @ 60% + surcharge

Mukesh Kumar Kaushik, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4316/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Mukesh Kumar Kaushik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 376-A, Vipin Garden, Main Ward-25(3), Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajpk3953B Smt Santosh Kumari Kaushik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 376-A, Vipin Garden, Main Ward-25(3), Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajpk3953B

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 69A

hands of Smt Santosh Kumari Kaushik and Shri Mukesh Kumar Kaushik respectively as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to their total income. 4. Both the husband and wife preferred appeals before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) issued direction

Santosh Kumar Kaushik, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 42(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2352/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 69A

Abhay Nitin Arekar, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 276/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 80T

explanation towards cash deposits and credit entries in his account. Therefore, the above mentioned cash deposits amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- was treated as Unexplained Money and added to the total income of the appellant. The AO has also added Rs.15,10,820/- on account of credit entries

Swati Nabendu Podder, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 302/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

paid due taxes thereon. The value of credit entry including cash deposit appearing in the RBL Bank and Corporation bank accounts is confirmed as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed

Nadathara Grama Vikasana Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 426/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

framing of best judgement assessment u/s. 144 of the Act by brining to tax the cash deposits of Rs. 5,70,34,279/- as unexplained money of the appellant society. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte

Nadathara Grama Vikasana Co-Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 425/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 7,00,000/- unexplained money u/s 69A r. w.s 115BBE of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT 8 (A) erred ... immovable property u/s 69 3. DLC and face value difference on 3,44,632 purchase of immovable property u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) 4. Unexplained money u/s 69A rws 115BBE 7,00,000 Total 67,69,092 7. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal