← 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

Laila Agencies, Pathanamthitta vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches

ITA 1048/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Laila Agencies .......... Appellant Paliakara, Thiruvalla 689101 [Pan: Aaefl0921D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 .......... Respondent T.K. Road, Thiruvalla 689101 Appellant By: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)(ii)Section 147Section 148

wherein addition of Rs. 1,07,09,240/- was made on account of cash deposits made with the State Bank of India as unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 5 month. The appellant had filed explanation

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Ludhiana vs. Swati Industries, Punjab

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

ITA 547/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 216/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Swati Industries D-74, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870M प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 40Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

case, the Ld. CIT(A) was rightly justified in deleting addition of Rs. 34,51,288/- on account of unexplained cash receipts as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was rightly justified in deleting

Swati Industries D-74, Phase-V Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

ITA 216/CHANDI/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 216/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Swati Industries D-74, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870M अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 40Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

case, the Ld. CIT(A) was rightly justified in deleting addition of Rs. 34,51,288/- on account of unexplained cash receipts as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was rightly justified in deleting

Dtc Trading Co, Ludhiana vs. Partner, Rishi Nagar Ludhiana

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

ITA 1016/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 3Section 68Section 69A

books of accounts vide order, dated 30.12.2019. Certain additions on account of deposits in the different bank accounts of the assessee were made as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w. the provisions of the section 115BBE, amounting to Rs. 1,22,50,000/-. It was noticed by the AO that certain

Shabbirahmad Mahamadhanif Mulla, A/P Khandal, Tal Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1250/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1250/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rahul KavaleFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

appear before the Assessing Officer resulting into culmination of best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and making addition of Rs.18,37,000/- for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Further appeal before ld.CIT(A) brought no good result as again there was no representation on behalf of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Sri Rama Jewellery Mart, Trichy

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3334/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit Sri Rama Jewellery Mart बनाम/ Vs. Central Circle-2, # 170, Big Bazar Trichy. Trichy-620 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabfs-0686-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Guathami Manivasagam (Jcit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj & Shri S. Girish Kumar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 29-10-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 29-09-2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: - 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.51,80,002/- Made Towards Unexplained Money U/S.69A & In Accepting That The Assessee Was Able To Demonstrate The Availability Of Cash, Including Cash Sales That Were Properly Recorded In The Books Of Accounts & Submitted Relevant Supporting Documents, Including The Cash Book, Which Reflected The Cash Balance Of Rs.51,80,002/-Without Appreciating The Fact That The Cash

For Appellant: Ms. Guathami Manivasagam (JCIT) - Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj & Shri S. Girish Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

facts of the case and in law. 2 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.51,80,002/- made towards unexplained money u/s.69A and in accepting that the assessee was able to demonstrate the availability of cash, including cash sales that were properly recorded in the books

ITO, Ward 43(6), Delhi vs. Ankur Jain, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3305/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward 43(6), Vs. Ankur Jain, New Delhi Bh-4, Delhi East, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Pan: Adkpj1885H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 11SSection 68Section 69A

books of account maintained by assessee and no inflated purchases or suppressed sales were found, such cash deposit could not be treated as unexplained money of assessee was to be deleted. Reliance is placed on: Deepak Sharma v. ACIT, ITA No. 2886/Del/2022 Bharat Agro Industries v. DCIT, ITA No.3934/Del/2023 ... cess as applicable) on gross basis (without any deduction/ allowance). In fact, it is reiterated that the treatment of the cash deposits as unexplained money U/s 69A by the A.O has resulted in double taxation of the same amount, once in the form of cash sales already offered

Dwarka Jewellers Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 935/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse to the facts on record in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the act as unexplained money. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 67,00,000/- is deleted. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Hardik Hundia, Balotra vs. Income Tax Officer, Balotra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

NFAC erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 41,51,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money deposited during the demonetization period without appreciating the fact that entire deposits made during the demonetization period was out of trade receipt of assessee concern, and same was duly ... challenged by assessee is that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.41,51,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained money during demonetization period being trading receipt of assessee concern. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that while

Vempati Satish, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

ITA 455/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250

aforesaid cash deposits, the A.O., vide his order passed u/s 144 dated 20.11.2019, held the entire amount as having been sourced out of his unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings ... were engaged in petty jobs in the remote areas, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O. to have held the same as his unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 12. However, the aforesaid claim of the assessee did not find favour with

Ellapu Narasamma L/R of Late Ellapu Appa Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Visakhapatnam

ITA 414/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

entire amount of the cash deposits made during the demonetization period aggregating to Rs.27 lacs (supra) as having been sourced out of his unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee

Philippose Varghese, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 3, Alappuzha

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

ITA 279/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 46/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Philippose Varghese .......... Appellant Puthenchiramel, Cheppad, Alappuzha 690513 [Pan: Akcpv4524A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

total income of Rs. 51,30,140/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 31,21,000/- as unexplained money being cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during demonetisation period, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals from ... short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,21,000/- unexplained money of the appellant. The appellant had offered explanation before the AO in support of the said cash deposits by stating that the cash deposits were

The Malayala Manorama Co. Pvt. Ltd, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Circle & Tps, Kottayam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd .......... Appellant Manorama Building, K K Road, Kottayam – 686001, Kerala. Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle & Tps, Kottayam.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

response to the enquiry conducted by him. Thus, it is contended that no addition can be made on account of cash deposits as unexplained money by the appellant. As 3 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT regards to the disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act, it is contended ... explanation. Therefore, the AO ought not to have made any addition on account of the cash deposits of Rs. 88,500/- treating it as unexplained money of the appellant. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 88,500/- and thus, this Ground of Appeal is allowed

Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 37/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)

addition of Rs.73,81,912/- was made on account of Long-Term Capital Gains and addition of Rs. 21,20,000/- on account of unexplained money. 2. Shri Raghav Ram Tripathi , the deceased assessee, expired on 09.04.2021 due to heart attack at the age of about 78 years

Ramesh, Gawali Palasia, Mhow vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiramesh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 387, Malwiya Mohalla, 5(1), Vs. Gawali Palasia, Indore Mhow, Indore

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)Section 253Section 69A

total income of the appellant on account of cash deposited in the bank account by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... addition of Rs. 9,67,200/- to the total income of the appellant on account of investment in time deposits by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case 4. That on the facts

Umeshbhai Ramanlal Shah, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1104/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

deleted. It be deleted now. 5. The NFAC/CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating that the appellant was not having any source of unexplained money as also noted by NFAC in para 4.3.4 of the appeal order and considering cash flow statement, when no books are required to be maintained

Ark Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(1) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 720/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.720/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ark Cartons Private Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, 67/9, D-3 Block, Midc, S Ward-8(1), Pune-44. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019. Maharashtra. Pan: Aanca6083B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rinkesh Gupta – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 17.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 23.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Adding & Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 69A

No.720/PUN/2025 [A] erred in confirming the various additionissionccount of cash deposits in deposits in the bank account of Rs. 18,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The Appellant prays that the entire addition may please

Rahul Prakash Sankh L/R of Late Prakash Basappa Sankh, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bijapur

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

ITA 2370/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba R, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 263Section 69A

deceased father. The AO had not accepted the explanations offered by the legal heir of the deceased assessee and treated the said deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO had made the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act in the name of the deceased

Arunkumar Ramchand Poptani, Ulhasnagar, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 6296/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailarunkumar Ramchand Poptani, 302, Manwani Mension Gaol Maidan, Ulhasnagar, Thane - 421001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaxpp8396B V/S Ito, Ward - 2(1), Mohan Plaza, ……………… Respondent Kalyan

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Vide order dated 12.13.2017 passed under section 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act, the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 5. From the perusal of the impugned

Vijay Paul, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(8), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3180/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3180/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vijay Paul, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, B-4/134, Ground Floor, Paschim Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aqrpp5645D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059779022(1) Dated 16.01.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessment in the assessee’s case on 31.12.2019 assessing his cash deposits of 2 Vijay Paul Rs.31,99,500/- in bank account as representing unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 5. It is in this factual backdrop that