← 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

Srilakshmi Devireddy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

ITA 428/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

held the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.11,00,000/- made in her two bank accounts as having been sourced from her unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and framed the assessment vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 03.12.2019. Page ... made in her bank account, therefore, the AO had held the same as having been sourced out of her unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Also, I find that the assessee, even before the authorities below, had failed to discharge the onus that was cast upon

Mohammad Rafiq Warsi, Pipariya vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Itarsi

ITA 383/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

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

Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

computed & assessed at Rs. 13,70,000/-. Income as per the ITR was at NIL. The addition/variation of Rs.13,70,000/- was made as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The aforesaid Assessment order bears No. ITBA/COM/S/91/2021-22/1036033736 (1) & that the same is dated 29.09.2021 which is herein after referred ... provide any concrete evidence for sources of this cash. Therefore, this office is constrained to treat cash deposited of Rs. 13,70,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s

Dharmendra Rikhavchand Shah, HUF, Himatnagar vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Huris.the ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 2680/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

show cause notice under section 144 of the Act was issued proposing to treat the entire amount of Rs.1,13,02,029/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Even to the show cause notices, the assessee remained non-responsive. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ... under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 20.02.2024, treating the entire sum of Rs.1,13,02,029/- as unexplained money under section 69A, taxing the same under section 115BBE, and initiating penalty proceedings under sections

Balaraj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1979/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

details to the part of the cash deposits and the AO without accepting the other submissions had confirmed a part of the deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had issued

Ramesh Purshottam Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

ordinary course of investment activity. 7. The assessee also specifically objected to the proposal of the Assessing Officer to treat the dividend amount as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act, contending that the dividend was received from a duly registered mutual fund scheme and could ... further submitted that the show cause notice dated 29.04.2023 issued during the course of reassessment proceedings proposed to treat the dividend amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. However, in the final reassessment order, the Assessing Officer did not make the addition under section 69A but instead

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Subhash Road vs. Windlass Constructions, Rajpur Road

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 33/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Jcit (Osd) Vs Windlass Constructions Aaykar Bhawan, 53-R, Rajpur Road 13 A, Subhhash Road, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Aabfw4972E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Varendra Kalra, Ca Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10687/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2017, Declaring Loss Of Inr 4,61,33,210/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Various Reasons Where One Of The Reasons Was That Large Cash Was Deposited During Demonetization Period. The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Inr 2,40,32,000/- During The Demonetization Period For Which It Was Explained That The Immediate Source Was Out Of The Withdrawals Made Prior To The Deposits. Ao Observed That Cash Was Withdrawn For Business Activities & Were Spent & Therefore, The Source Of The Cash Remained Unexplained & Made The Addition U/S 69A As Unexplained Money & Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bb Of The Act.

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

withdrawn for business activities and were spent and therefore, the source of the cash remained unexplained and made the addition u/s 69A as unexplained money and invoked the provision of section 115BB of the Act. 3. Against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned ... case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,50,000/- made on account of unexplained money accrued to the assessee. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) while allowing relief

Pardeep Kumar Walia, Dehradun vs. DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Pradeep Kumar Walia Vs Dcit C/O-Matta Garg & Co. Central Circle 15, Astley Hall Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aabpw2423F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeals) Noida-3/10009/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act On 04.11.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 86,20,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Corresponding Capital Gain Was Not Declared In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

Lumba which was offered as income by the assessee. The AO invoked the provision of section 69A and held that such cash loan as unexplained money and further, made the addition of Rs. 25.00 lacs and invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act and applied higher rate ... therefore the provisions of section u/s 69A of the Act could not be applied. The provisions of section 69A are read 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

Income Tax Officer, Dehradun vs. Rakesh Mohan Verma, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs Rakesh Mohan Verma Ward-1(1)(3) 144, Neshvilla Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 13 A, Subhhash Road, 248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Abbpvcv4728J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Amit Arora, Ca & Shri Vishal Mishra, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Dehradun/10729/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income 10,94,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Issue “Large Cash Deposits Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.08.2018, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Issued From Time To Time. In Response, The Assessee Filed Replies & Produced All The Information & Supporting Documentary Evidences For Examination. The Ao Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,53,25,642/- Wherein Addition Of Inr 69,81,000/- Is Made As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Towards The Bank Deposits & Further Inr 9,60,568/- Added As Unexplained Income Being Difference Between Deposits & Income Declared. Further An Addition Of Inr 62,89,172/- Is Made As One Fourth Payments Against Loan Repayment Of Rs.251,56,689/- Repaid From Undisclosed Sources U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessed the income of the assessee at INR 1,53,25,642/- wherein addition of INR 69,81,000/- is made as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act towards the bank deposits and further INR 9,60,568/- added as unexplained income being difference between deposits and income declared ... whether the CIT (A) was justified to cancel the additions made on account of deposits made into bank accounts which have been treated as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act and have been added to the total income of the assessee which

Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Trust, Mainpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

ITA 607/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Campus S. K. Scientific Ward -4(2)(5), Public Inter College Karhal, Mainpuri Manipuri Pan : Aaots3631B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 144Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

explanations and to pass an order in accordance with law. 2 BECAUSE, the finding of the Assessing Officer that the cash deposits constitute "unexplained money" within the meaning of section 69A of the Act is perverse and contrary to the record, inasmuch as the Appellant Trust had no source ... unterable. 2.1 BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the Appellant is a charitable trust running

Income Tax Officer, Kakinada vs. Andhra Pradesh United Teachers Federation, Kakinada

ITA 609/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

deposits of Rs. 79,76,913/-, made an addition of the entire amount by treating the same as having been sourced out of its unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.03.2024, determined ... form of donations for the specific purpose of constructing its building "Employees Home." The AO held that these donations were unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A and accordingly added them to the total income. The AO further applied section 115BBE to tax the same at a higher rate

Kota Radha, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 563/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

aforesaid cash deposits of Rs. 94,12,850/-, the A.O held the entire amount as having been sourced from the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Apart from that, the AO made an addition of the interest income that was received by the assessee during

Kota Radha, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 562/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

aforesaid cash deposits of Rs. 94,12,850/-, the A.O held the entire amount as having been sourced from the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Apart from that, the AO made an addition of the interest income that was received by the assessee during

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

assessee as well as any explanation furnished by the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the sum of Rs.1,24,69,339/- as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO found that the assessee received total ... while carrying out the said business, there are withdrawals by cheque and cash from time to time and as such the same is not unexplained money. It is submitted that section 69A which is a deeming provision deals with unexplained money etc. comes into play only if the following

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO - Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

assessee as well as any explanation furnished by the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the sum of Rs.1,24,69,339/- as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO found that the assessee received total ... while carrying out the said business, there are withdrawals by cheque and cash from time to time and as such the same is not unexplained money. It is submitted that section 69A which is a deeming provision deals with unexplained money etc. comes into play only if the following

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

assessee as well as any explanation furnished by the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the sum of Rs.1,24,69,339/- as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO found that the assessee received total ... while carrying out the said business, there are withdrawals by cheque and cash from time to time and as such the same is not unexplained money. It is submitted that section 69A which is a deeming provision deals with unexplained money etc. comes into play only if the following

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 69A

Focus 5.5 Software for Rs.46,81,650/-, additions towards adjustment purchase of Rs.31,78,127/- and further addition of Rs.70,53,062/- towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Page 4 of 74 ITA No 1894 of 2025 Exel Rubber Private Ltd 5. Aggrieved by the order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai vs. Taj Mohamed, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69A

Section 69A by relying on the Supreme Court decision in D.N. Singh v. CIT, asserting that cash deposits in bank accounts do not constitute unexplained money under that provision. The assessee also argued that the AO misunderstood the trade practices in the skin business, particularly regarding skin removal and transportation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Taj Mohamed, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2872/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69A

Section 69A by relying on the Supreme Court decision in D.N. Singh v. CIT, asserting that cash deposits in bank accounts do not constitute unexplained money under that provision. The assessee also argued that the AO misunderstood the trade practices in the skin business, particularly regarding skin removal and transportation

Pooja Vinod Wadhwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, -2, Kalyan

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

ITA 806/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpooja Vinod Wadhwani, 105, Tulip Building, May Flower, Ambernath, Maharashtra - 421501 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaqpw2153G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kalyan, Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, ……………… Respondent Kalyan (W) - 421301

For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

being the cash deposited by the assessee in her bank account, under section 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained money. 7. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, granted partial relief to the assessee and, to meet the ends of justice, considered 50% of the cash ... estimating the income at 5% of the receipts and retained the remaining addition of Rs.22,45,000/- as unexplained money. This position has been accepted and the Revenue is not in appeal. As regards, the balance sustained deposited amount of Rs.22,45,000/- is concerned, it has to be submitted

Rajesh Tyagi, Ambah vs. ITO Ward 1, Morena

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

ITA 618/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

under the facts and circumstance and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,60,000/-on account of unexplained money for cash deposit in bank under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, even cash deposit amount is not correct which is Rs.5