“unexplained money”

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

outset, ld AR submitted that for the assessment year 2016-17, the addition of Rs.1,70,00,000/- has been treated as unexplained money and the said addition has been restored to the file of the ld AO for fresh consideration. He submitted that for the assessment year

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Narinder Singh Village and Post Office Tarmala Malout District Muktsar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5) Muktsar Jao Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Muktsar, Muktsar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Wines and Financers and M/s New Gagan Wines (Proprietor Amit Doda) who are both L – 1 Excise license holders by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. However, it is seen from the assessment order para 4 that in the instant case, the said amount

Basharat Saleem Rehtoo, Srinagar vs. DCIT, ACIT Cent. Circle, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

assessment proceedings as the explanation offered by the assessee, was not found satisfactory by the then AO and was, therefore, treated as the unexplained money of the assessee and added to his income u/s 69A of the Act. In this regard, section 69A of the Act, is reproduced below

Anand Foods, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 239/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

observations, Ld. AO enhanced the income of assessee by making an addition for Rs. 1,19,29,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained money, on account of assessee’s failure to furnish any plausible explanation towards cash deposits in the bank account. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition

Tekchand Harilal, Balasore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Balasore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

bank account. The said cash deposits are accounted in the books of account and the cash deposits are not on account of unexplained money and, therefore, same cannot be added u/s.69A of the Act. It is submitted by ld AR that the old SBNs deposited relates to the business receipts ... Assessment Year : 2017-18 accepted it as business receipts and sales turnover, therefore, the trading receipts cannot be disallowed as unexplained money. 4. On the other hand, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available

Divya Darshan Enterprise, Junagadh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 150/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Divya Darshan Enterprise Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Block No. 7/8, Meera Nagar, Opp. Circle – 1(1), Rajkot Shashikunj, Gandhipar, B/H. Sardarbaug, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Junagadh – 362001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd5111A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

assessing the total income at Rs.81,46,440/- by making addition of Rs.11,00,000/- u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain source of cash deposit during demonetization period alongwith necessary documentary evidences. 8 As stated above, assessing

Narendrasinh Manubha Zala, Bhachau vs. The ITO Ward-4, Gandhidham, (Bhuj-2)

In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed"”

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 101/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendrasinh Manubha Zala Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd – 4, 102, 1St Floor, Income Tax Officer, Kariya Dham Bhat Pariya Vistar, Main Road, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Nr. Bhachau - 370140 Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpz8118R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming the action of the ITO Ward-4, Gandhidhamin making addition of Rs. 26,50,000/- by way of unexplained money deposited in the bank account of Appellant during demonetization period. 3.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal ... total income. In response, no reply has been received by this office. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 26,50,000/- is made as unexplained money. Narendrasinh M. Zala v. ITO 8. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO, vide dated 09.12.2019. In the office

Dilipsinnh Gambhirsnh Jadeja, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

grievously erred on facts as also in law in making addition of Rs. 7,74,000/- u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain source of cash deposits alongwith necessary evidences. The addition made is totally unjustified on facts

Jivrajbhai Mavjibhai Pa vs. Iya, Suratvs.Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1) Surat, Ayakar Bhawan, Surat

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

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1120/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jivrajbhai Mavjibhai Pavsiya 204, Amizara Palace, B/H Vs. Gabani Kidney Hospital, Lal Darwaja, Surat-395006 Income Tax Officer Ward No.3(3)(2), Surat, Ayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate Nr. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं. / जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adwpp 2625 F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Pandya, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 उ‌द्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') Dated 30.08.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, 'Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, 'Ao') U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2019. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: "1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Making Order By Upholding Addition Made By Ito Without Considering Facts, Circumstances Of Our Case & Submission Made By Us During Appeal Proceedings Even Though Source Of Cash Deposit Already Explained, Therefore Section 69A Not Applicable In Our Case.

issued a show cause notice asking assessee 2 ITA No.1102/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Jivrajbhai M Pavsiya to explain why Rs.13,50,000/- should not be treated as unexplained money. The assessee submitted copy of ITR, computation of income, cash book and ledger of M/s B. Pavasiya & Co., but he did not file

Sathi Mangayamma, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

made in her bank account during the demonetization period, therefore, the A.O. held the same as having been sourced out of her unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 16.12.2009 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.37 ... cash deposits of ₹ 20 lacs (supra) made in the said bank 6 Sathi Mangayamma account during the demonetization period as the assessee's unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 12. Apropos the Ld. AR's claim that the subject cash deposits of ₹ 20 lacs (supra) were sourced

Kamal Kishore Lakhena, Barwani vs. ITO, Sendhwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Kamal Kishor Lakhena, Ito, Sendhwa Shri Nath Sadan, Teh Ke Samne, बनाम/ Davana Road, Vs. Thikri, Barwani (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqpl4153K Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs. 10,38,000 as unexplained money more particularly when the source of deposit of cash is duly explained. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable ... erred in sustaining the addition made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs. 10,38,000 as unexplained money without considering the submissions on record in proper perspective. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made