“unexplained money”

Mangilal Datla, Banswara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Banswara, Banswara

case in making the addition of Rs.1,75,20,300/- u/s 69A on account of alleged cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money, and also erred in not considering the material available on record in their true perspective and sense and the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred ... explain source of such cash deposits. Considering all the above facts total cash deposits of Rs. 1,75,20,300/- is hereby treated unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act". 4. In first appeal assessee has filed detailed WS(PB32-38) and documents admittedly, however

Shanker Narayan Agarwal, Jodhpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him & Also Before Assessing Authority In Regard To Making Addition Of Rs. 11,78,500/- As Unexplained Money. 2. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Does Not Prove That Amount Previously Withdrawn From Bank Neither Invested Or Used By Assessee As Such The Order Under Appeal Is Bad In Law Thus Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Learned Ito & Cit Appeal Not Follow The Various Decision Of Itat Submitted Before Both Of Them & Decision Taken Contrary To Such Decision Is Bad In Law & Bad In Facts. 4. That Your Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend & Alter Any Of Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

accepting explanation submitted by assessee before him and also before assessing authority in regard to making addition of Rs. 11,78,500/- as unexplained money. 2. That the learned ITO and CIT Appeal does not prove that amount previously withdrawn from bank neither invested or used by assessee as such ... months prior to 08.11.2016), the remaining amount of Rs. 11,78,500/- (Rs. 13,81,500 – Rs. 2,03,000) was treated as unexplained money as per section 69A of the IT Act, 1961, as the assessee could not adduce any satisfactory explanation except illogical explanation. Aggrieved by the order

Nilu Kumari, Saran vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tx Dptt., Delhi

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

surmises. 3. For that the A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs.1,81,70,070/- on account of section 69A on account of unexplained money under section of 69A, though case was reopened on the basis of Cash withdrawals (including through bearer's cheque) in current account amounting ... that the Ld. AO has assumed that all the credit appearing in the Bank account are in the nature of unexplained money under section 69A. The appellant in its written submission bank statement, dated 09/11/2022 and 19/12/2022 has submitted the copies of form 26AS along with the chart showing details

Sh Ranjeet Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ITO 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

State Bank of India amounting to Rs. 12,16,500.00 & confirming AO's action of treating the amount of Rs. 12,16,500.00 as unexplained money u/s 69A & upholding the addition. Appellant explanation may kindly be accepted & the addition made may kindly be deleted. Ranjeet Kumar Sharma vs. ITO Ground ... making addition of Rs.12,60,500/- after invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and further by holding the same as unexplained money being the cash deposited during demonetization period. 9. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee assessed to tax for past

Ranjana Chaturvedi, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

which is kept for financial security of the family, therefore, the petty amount of Rs.1,90,000/- in SBN should not be treated as unexplained money and he thus, requested that the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported

Singh Carriers, Jhansi vs. Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Singh Carriers, Ward-2(3)(1), 2716, Swamipuram Vs. Jhansi. Colony, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284003. Pan-Aacfs9607B (Appellant) (Respondent)

thus, the AO made addition of Rs.21,14,22,258/- u/s 69 of the Act by holding the credits in the bank account as unexplained money. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with ground of appeal No.1 to 6 taken on the merits of the additions

Brajendra Vikram Singh, Jalaun vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(5), Orai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

well by considering the cash deposits made by my younger brother during the demonetization period in a joint account with the appellant as unexplained money while it was the sale receipts. 07. The AO as well as CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts as well ... well by considering the cash deposits made by my younger brother during the demonetization period in a joint account with the appellant as unexplained money while it was the sale receipts. 7. The Income Tax Officer grossly erred in law and on facts as well by considering the sales receipts

Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt.Ltd, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Shree Ramraja Homes Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra. 7, Om Building, New Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh- 284002 Pan-Aapcs3955G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Utsav Sehgal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 28.03.2024, In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10165707 For Assessment Year 2017- 18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, Inshort) Dated 21.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate & Filed Its Return Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.46,53,593/-. The Assessing Officer Has Information In Its Possession That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.34,00,000/-, Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021 After Recording The Reasons & Taking Necessary Approvals From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S 148 Nor Made Any Response To The Notices Issued By The Ao On Various Occasions Including Show Cause Notice Dated 08.03.2022. Therefore, The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Therefore, the AO has completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.34,00,000/- by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and further invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Against such order, the assessee preferred ... appellant nor such books of account have been rejected and therefore, the cash deposited into the bank account cannot be treated as unexplained money since it was duly recorded in the books of account maintained by the appellant, (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition

Renu Kumari, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Ranchi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.497/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Kumari...………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Qtr. No.B/824, Sector-Ii, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. [Pan: Adlpk4316K] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. Thereafter, Notice 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued Directing The Assessee To Submit Relevant Details. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Found That During The Period Of 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017, The Assessee Had Made Deposits Amounting To Rs.31,67,857/- In Her Bank Accounts. Due To Lack Of Any Explanation Or Reply, The Assessing Officer Treated Rs.31,67,857/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Added The Same To The Assessee’S Total Income.

Rs.31,67,857/- in her bank accounts. Due to lack of any explanation or reply, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.31,67,857/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the assessee’s total income. I.T.A. No.497/Ran/2024 Renu Kumari 3. Aggrieved by the above order