← 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

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

Mallur Kaligounder Muthamil, Salem vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 713/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:713/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mallur Kaligounder Muthamil, The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No.106, Trichy Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Mallur Post, Circle -1, Hosur. Salem – 636 203. [Pan:Cowpm-3525-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69A

agricultural commodities and cash balance as on 08.11.2016. However, the AO was not convinced and made an addition of Rs.10,39,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act stating that the assessee was prohibited to transact in SBN as per the demonetisation notification w.e.f. 09.11.2016 and passed an order ... that both the AO has erred in treating the cash deposit made in SBN by the customers of assessee to its bank account as unexplained money inspite of furnishing the complete details for source of cash deposited in SBN without rejecting the books of accounts. Hence prayed for setting aside

Kandasamy Rajendran, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Salem

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 712/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:712/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kandasamy Rajendran, Ito, 80-H6 Behind S.P.Bungalow, Vs. Ward 1 (1), Kambar Street, Salem. Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan:Ahhpr-9653-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Goutami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Goutami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69A

ld.CIT(A) have erred in making addition of Rs.9,50,000/- of cash deposit made in SBNs during the demonetisation period as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual retired from government service on 30.06.2013 filed ... year and the balance available of Rs.42.00 Lakhs on 08.11.2016 and hence made an addition of Rs.9.50 lakhs out of Rs.10.98 lakhs deposited as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and concluded the assessment by passing an order u/s.143

Govindasamy Bharathiraja, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Mr. Govindasamy Bharathiraja, The Ito, Old 4, New 6, Balaji Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), 3Rd Cross Street, Velachery, Chennai. Chennai-600 042. [Pan: Albpb 2971 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 69Section 69A

offer satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of these deposits, hence the value of deposits i.e.Rs. 10,40,000/- is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee for taxation at the rate ... claim that it relates to business. Therefore, the amount is liable to be added under deeming provision of 69A. Section 69A reads as under. Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

Pragnesh Kantarya, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surendranagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 485/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 485/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pragnesh Kantariya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd –1, (Prop. Of Vision Industies) Surendranagar, Income Tax Office, B2-1101, Shilpan Onyx, Gangotri Park Opp. Mela Medan, Main Road, University Road, Surendranagar-363001 Rajkot – 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbspk0467P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

made by the Learned Assessing Officer, which is equal to cash deposited in bank account during the year under consideration, treating the same as Unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 115BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition is in total disregards

Maneesh Joshi, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

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

ITA 613/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Shri Maneesh Joshi आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 613/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2018-19 बनाम | The ITO, Vs. Ward-Dausa Dausa Ward No. 24, Jageer (Rural) Bandikui, Baswa Road, Bandikui, Tehsil: Baswa, Dausa-303 313 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGFPJ 8810N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

JOSHI VS ITO, WARD -DAUSA confirming the addition u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 22,83,000/- on account of unexplained money, Kindly delete the addition. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC is wrong, unjust ... assessee by observing as under:- ‘’i) The Cash deposit made totaling Rs. 22,83,000 during the FY. 2017-18 is determined as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT. Act, 1961. The tax is being charged u/s 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Penalty u/s 271AAC

Savita Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Delhi

ITA 609/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Value recorded in books Rs. 16,20,000/-, Difference Rs. 13,95,000/- which was paid in cash was thus added unexplained money in the case of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

Hitendrakumar Thakorbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Ward 3(1)(5), Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

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

ITA 2033/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblehitendrakumar Thakorbhai Income Tax Officer, Vs. Patel, Ward-3(1)(5), Darwaja Khadki, Vadodara. At Simli, Post Simli Talkarjan, Vadodara-391244. [Pan :Arupp0754 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krutarth K Desai, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth K Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 69A

Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– demonetization period and proceeded to treat the amount of Rs. 5,92,006/- in the form of unexplained money liable to tax u/s 69A. 4. During the year under dispute, the appellant has shown rental income of Rs. 85,480/- and agricultural income

Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 415/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar J. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

dated 25.11.2019, wherein he held the source of the subject cash deposits as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success. For the sake of clarity ... addition of Rs. 14.08 lacs (supra) by 6 Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, Hyderabad. treating the same, as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the subject payments in the credit card accounts

Shyama Shree, Asansol vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Asansol

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

ITA 967/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

creditor and the genuineness of the transaction therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) treated a sum of ₹ 10,65,77,400/- as nothing but unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly, confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 10. Before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 603/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:603/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tax, Vs. 3, Ml Theri Road, Keeraikaranthattu, Central Circle -2, Mahadevankulam, Madurai. Tirunelveli – 627 657. [Pan:Abxpj-7672-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68Section 69A

claim made in the return of Income. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,75,43,171/- made as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act by observing that “…since nothing in the form of any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article were found during ... course of search, there can be no case to treat the evidence found about the deposit made will fetch the character of unexplained money as provided under section 69A of the Act when section 69A clearly reads, “Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner

Rajamanickam Amsavani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 1197/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Appellate Authority is justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being cash deposit made by the assessee during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The assessee has also raised an alternative ground, namely provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will not have application

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1870/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

expenses no business can be carried out. The assessee failed to substantiate claim of labour contract. The assessing officer treated the entire receipt as unexplained money under section 69A. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1869/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

expenses no business can be carried out. The assessee failed to substantiate claim of labour contract. The assessing officer treated the entire receipt as unexplained money under section 69A. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1868/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

expenses no business can be carried out. The assessee failed to substantiate claim of labour contract. The assessing officer treated the entire receipt as unexplained money under section 69A. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before

Krishn Mani Pandey, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 2629/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Krishn Mani Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 90D, Block E4, Ward 5(2)(1), Udyog Vihar, Sector 82, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Pin 201 301 Pan No. Addpp5631J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms, Shilpi Dewan, CA & Sh. K.MFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer in his order wrongly treated the cash deposited from general public on behalf of Punjab National Bank at his location as an unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The cash to the tune of Rs. 1, 55, 96,870/- is not an unexplained

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur vs. Nandkumar Prasad Sah, Saraiyganj Road, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 248/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,31,71,438/- being unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, holding that the AO has failed to bring on record any incriminating document found and seized during the course ... revised return. The Ld. AO, while passing the assessment order 153A of the Act, added a sum of Rs.1,31,71,438/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and determined the total income

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Sanjay Laddha, Indore

ITA 658/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

account of cash deposit in bank account invoking section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by treating the cash as unexplained money of the assessee.* - *2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ... addition of Rs. 3,21,80,200/- is being done by invoking section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by treating the cash as unexplained money of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is being initiated separately on this issue."* 5. During first-appeal, the assessee made a detailed submission

Chadha Motors, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Kurukshetra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1145/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chadha Motors, The Ito, बनाम Ladwa, Kurukshetra Kurukshetra 136135 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaifc0237B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ankush Sharma, Advocate (Virtual), राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr For Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl., Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Ankush Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR for Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl., Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

making an addition of Rs. 78,33,600/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the cash deposits & bank interest as unexplained money. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeals. 3. The brief

Suman Takkallapalli, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 44/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M Poornachandra RaoFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

relevant details, has rejected the explanation of assessee and made addition of Rs.8,39,500/- u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money on the ground that assessee could not offer proper explanation/evidence in respect of cash payments to chit funds in SBNs during the demonetization period