“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonvani, Rajkot

ITA 793/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranapura, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,12,54,700/- made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income tax Act on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. (This is revenue’s ground no. 2 in ITA No. 791/RJT/2024 for AY 2012-13,Ground No.2 ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,19,820/-, made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income tax Act on account of unexplained money u/s 694A of the Income tax Act. (This is revenue’s ground No. 6 in IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonvani, Rajkot

ITA 792/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranapura, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonvani, Rajkot

ITA 791/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranapura, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Umesh Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 482/PAT/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am**

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

learned Assessing Officer, wherein the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of cash found during the course of search by treating the same as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. - 03. The facts in brief are that a search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted ... following issues.* *A. On account of undisclosed cash found from locker no. Rs. 45,94,000/-454, HDFC Bank, Boring Road, Patna* *B. Unexplained money paid to the children Rs. 9,00,000/-* *Total Rs. 54,94,000/-* *The points of additions are discussed and decided hereunder:* *Addition

Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, Salem vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 1861/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. Ita No. 1861/Chny/2025 & Sa 69/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, V. Dcit, Central Circle, 6/21, Devanayagam Pillai, Salem-636007 St. Shevapet, Salem-636002 [Pan: Apopm 3624 H] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Jaydip Desai, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69A

appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs 10,84,977/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money, without properly appreciating the evidence, documents, and explanations placed on record by the Appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that ... order: 6. Decision: 6.1. Ground no. 1 & 2: 6.1.1. These grounds raised by the appellant are against the addition of Rs.49,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. With regard to the source of seized cash of Rs.49,00,000/-, the appellant had submitted during the assessment

Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, Bathinda vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bathinda

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

ITA 54/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 194LSection 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 4Section 45(5)

Bank at Delhi earned from the sources not disclosed to the department. Hence, an amount of Rs.2,33,00,000/- is held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the assessee from undisclosed sources and tax will be charged on assessed income as per provision of section 115BBE of the Income ... Finally, the amount of Rs.233 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. It emerges that the assessee is a corporate entity

Sandeep Vishnu Redekar, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 36/PAN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.36/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2017-18) Sandeep Vishnu Redekar, Vs I T O Ward(1), H.No.103,Daddi,Tal-Hukkeri, Dr Ghogeri Building, . Belgavi-591254, Belgaum Road, Karnataka. Gokak-591307, Karnataka. Pan: Amwpr8609J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Swapnil Patil.Ar Revenue By Shri.Sanket Deshmukh.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Ex-Parte Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Of Commission & Unexplained Money U/Sec69A Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing With The Sale Of Prepaid Charges Of Mobile To Customers. The Assesee Has Filed The Return Of Income For A.Y.2017-2018 On 14.09.2017 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.2,68,990/- & The Case

assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of commission and unexplained money u/sec69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business

Chetanbhai Sardarsinh Parmar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 192/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

made by the AO on account of cash deposited in the bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank treating the same as unexplained money, merely on surmises and conjecture, without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case and submission filed. In view of the facts

Kiran Bala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 341/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Gupta vs. ITO amounts claimed by the assessee to have been received as unsecured loans from 11 parties by treating the same as her unexplained money under section 69A of the Act: Rs.61,00,000/-. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 26/03/2015 ... Rs.61 lakhs, which the assessee had claimed to have received from 11 persons, as having been held by the AO as the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee had furnished the details in the course of the assessment

Sarda Brijgopal, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1891/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1891/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Sarda Brijgopal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-5(1), Pan: Aamhs2717L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, Dated 30/09/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Aluru V Sai Sudha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

rejecting the explanation of the assessee held the entire amount of cash deposit of Rs.10,43,500/- as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 18/12/2019 determined the income ... amount of cash deposits of Rs. 10.43 lakhs (approx.) made by the assessee during the demonetization period as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Elaborating on her contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee as on 31/03/2016 had available with

Devaraju Gajji, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1051/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115BSection 69A

rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.22,23,500 u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) as unexplained money and brought to tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... rightly rejected the explanation for the source for cash deposits and made addition of Rs.22,23,500/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, upheld the additions made by the A.O. and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

Dakappagari Naveen Kumar, Medak vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Sangareddy

ITA 911/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.911/Hyd/2024

For Respondent: CA A Srinivas

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 80C

1 ITA.No.911/Hyd./2024 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE

Gopalan Vijaysudha, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-4(3), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3884/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: MR. C. VenugopalFor Respondent: Ms. R ANITHA, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 69A

According to the Assessing Officer (AO), the cash deposits exceeded the sales reported in the ITR by Rs.20,01,166/-, which was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added to the income. Further, the AO made disallowances of Rs.3,39,012/- (being 20% of sundry

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tanishq Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8105/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

receipts in respect of a real estate project named “Palatina” situated at Ghatkopar, Mumbai, the same having been treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, founded predominantly on certain materials stated to have been seized from a third- party real estate broker, namely ... registered during the year under consideration in the project 'Platina'. This amount remains unexplained and is, therefore, added to the assessee's income as unexplained Money under Section 69 A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the transaction entered into by the assessee with the various

Tanishq Builders, Mumbai vs. The ACIT CC 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5952/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

Param Propertt Devloper, Ambernath vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Thane

ITA 3243/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarit(Ss)A/3241/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) It(Ss)A/3242/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) It(Ss)A/3243/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Param Property Developers V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 30, Jivandeep बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle Apartment, Station Road, Ambarnath(E), Thane 421501, Maharashtra 2,Thane, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane- 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfp9248G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Pride Infrastructure It(Ss)A/3309/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) It(Ss)A/3310/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 34, Ketan Bhavan, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle Suryoday Chs Ltd., Station Road, Ambarnath(E), Thane 421 501, Maharashtra 2,Thane, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane- 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aamfp3255G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page | 2

Section 132Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Pawan Gupta, Gwalior vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Gwalior

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Pawan Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, 104 Sai Kripa Apartment, Ward 2(3), C-34, Harishankarpuram, Gwalior Gwalior Pan : Ajtpg3192P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

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

addition may kindly be be deleted. Ground No.2:- That the Justified learned CIT (A) was not further an upholding addition of Rs. 1083890/- as unexplained money u/s 69A, Ignoring appellant's, humble genuine Submission made before the learned CIT (A) that the amount was received on various dates from Balaji ... Above addition may kindly be deleted. Ground No.3:- That the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 615905/- as Unexplained money, without appreciating Assessee's submission. The above addition may Kindly be deleted. Ground No.4:- That the learned CIT (A) was not justified In confirming addition

Anil Kumar Gupta, Subhash Ganj Dabra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pursuhottam Das Company, (Appeals) Subhash Ganj, Dabra Dabra, Dabra Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh Pan : Agnpg8041L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Alok Dhingra, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

year in the Financial Year. Hence, the action of the Ld. AO to treat this cash deposit of Rs. 11,95,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A is proper and as per law. I, herby, confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO. Hence, Ground No. 2 is dismissed

Shri Mohammad Imran Khajawal, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 306/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 144BSection 148Section 250Section 69A

despite the appellant declaring the source as business income. Cash deposits in bank accounts represent legitimate business receipts and cannot be taxed as "unexplained money" The Assessing Officer (AO) mechanically reclassified business receipts (declared under Section 148) as "income from other sources" without any evidentiary basis or justification. The appellants

Shri Abdul Hamid Mir, Kupwara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 266/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 28Section 44ASection 69A

cash deposits/credit entries appearing in J&K Bank Main Bazar Sopore, the AO was Justified in making addition of Rs. 10,42,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above facts, addition of Rs. 10,42,000/- made