← 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

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad

ITA 866/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

account of M/s. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent of Rs.19,46,57,904/- represent unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have upheld ... operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent ITA No.829/Ahd/2024 and three Others Rashmin Kantilal Vakta Vs. DCIT 13 of Rs.19,51,73,450/- as unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad Gujarat

ITA 865/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

account of M/s. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent of Rs.19,46,57,904/- represent unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have upheld ... operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent ITA No.829/Ahd/2024 and three Others Rashmin Kantilal Vakta Vs. DCIT 13 of Rs.19,51,73,450/- as unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 830/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

account of M/s. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent of Rs.19,46,57,904/- represent unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have upheld ... operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent ITA No.829/Ahd/2024 and three Others Rashmin Kantilal Vakta Vs. DCIT 13 of Rs.19,51,73,450/- as unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have

Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 829/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

account of M/s. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent of Rs.19,46,57,904/- represent unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have upheld ... operative Credit Society Ltd. to the extent ITA No.829/Ahd/2024 and three Others Rashmin Kantilal Vakta Vs. DCIT 13 of Rs.19,51,73,450/- as unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have

Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2) Now Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2042/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh L. Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69ASection 80G

failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash deposits, and therefore, the entire amount of Rs.32,61,500/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. In addition, the AO recorded an 3 alternative finding that since the assessee had maintained books of account ... cover for cash deposits. Thus, the DR argued that the AO rightly rejected the cash book and treated the total cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A. In the alternative, the DR submitted that since the assessee had routed the impugned cash through the books and shown

Chandra Sales Agency, Sikkim vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 10Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the cash deposits in the bank accounts should not be treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and proceeding u/s. 271AAC of the Act were also initiated. Thereafter, assessee vide letter dated 13.12.2019 submitted before the Assessing

Natarajan Thangavel, Tiruppur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 967/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:967/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Natarajan Thangavel, The Income Tax Officer, 3/19, Kottamangalam Post, Vs. Ward -2(4), Vellampalayam, Tirupur. Udumalpet – 642 201. [Pan:Afzpt-0315-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. S. Sankar Ganesh, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, Jcit

For Appellant: Dr. S. Sankar Ganesh, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

after giving credit of Rs.3,00,000/- as cash on hand held on 08.11.2016 the balance of Rs.23,13,400/- has been added as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by passing an order dated 26.12.2019 u/s.143(3) of the Act. :-3-: ITA. No:967/Chny/2025 4. Aggrieved by the order

H 529 Adarikalathur Paccs Ltd., Cuddalore vs. ITO, War-4, Cuddalore

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

ITA 961/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:961/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ii 529 Adarikalathur Primary Agrl Income Tax Officer, Co Op Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ward 4, Cuddalore. No.529, Adari, Tittagudi, Cuddalore – 606 304. [Pan:Aadfi-4760-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 147Section 249(3)Section 69A

exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 09.03.2023 by making an addition of entire cash deposit of Rs.1,92,45,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and brought to tax. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT ... Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and made an addition of entire cash deposits as unexplained money and on appeal the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A)-NFAC without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first

Vdc Food Trading, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 934/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:934/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vdc Food Trading, Ito, No.7/1. Beri Bakkali Street, Vs. Ward -1, Vellore – 632 004. Vellore. [Pan:Aaqfs-4019-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Abhishek Murali, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Abhishek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

deposits maintained with Central Bank of India and Indusind Bank to the total income for the year under consideration u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money. 3.2. Further, the assessee had made cash withdrawals of Rs.19,03,790/- from the bank account maintained with Central Bank of India and Rs.24

Malani Holdings Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 316/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen GoyalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

creditworthiness was not established. Thus, the amount, of share application money of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- received by the appellant was unexplained money of the appellant. As a result, the Ld. AO made assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 47 of the Act. 9. Under the appeal, the appellant has, inter

Raghvendra Singh Thakur, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

The appeal is allowed

ITA 242/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 69rSection 80C

addition made by the department, the correct provision of law to have been applied is Section 69A of the Act, which deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article for which the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of such money, bullion, jewelry

Ram Sopan Jadhav, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur

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

ITA 1491/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Smt Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

remained unexplained. Therefore, the cash Deposits and time deposits made by the assessee in his bank accounts of Rs.43,44,000/- is treated as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, penalty proceedings

Gangagiri Maharaj Betsarala Mahila Nagari Patsanstha Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1418/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 5Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

SBNs made during 15.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 out of amount received from members by the assessee credit cooperative society is to be taxed as unexplained money u/s 69A on the ground that the appellant credit society was not legally permitted to accept SBNs from its members during demonetization period without appreciating ... this amount was received during the demonetization period, ld. AO made addition for the said sum invoking section 69A of 6 the Act for unexplained money. Income assessed at Rs.20,70,119/-. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). So far as the issue relating to unexplained money

I K Corporation, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 790/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

well as law on the subject, NFAC has erred in confirming the action of A.O in making addition of Rs.39,01,500/- as unexplained money. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted

I K Corporation, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 789/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

well as law on the subject, NFAC has erred in confirming the action of A.O in making addition of Rs.39,01,500/- as unexplained money. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted

Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80C

being not satisfied with the replies proposed to add an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money and has also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,85,500/- being claim made by the assessee towards interest on borrowed capital and deduction claimed

M/S K.N.S. Exports Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 14/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Cash Credit Bank Account being Deposit of Sale Proceeds of Gold and Silver Jewellery and Ornaments during the year on different dates as unexplained money u/s 69A of I. T. Act without appreciating that these Sale Proceeds duly disclosed in the ITR at Rs. 11,03,94,034/- along with ... Therefore, the ld. AO made the assessment under the provisions of section 144. He treated the amount deposited in the said bank account as unexplained money under section 69A and he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 4. The assessee went in appeal against this order

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the Assessing Officer has made two additions qua the unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the Assessing Officer has made two additions qua the unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the Assessing Officer has made two additions qua the unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there