← 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

Noushad Bhayani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 69A

case. 2. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,32,44,506 made by the AO as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. (Tax Effect: Rs. 1,02,31,381) 3. Without prejudice, the authorities below ought to have estimated ... regards the source of the aforesaid credits in the bank accounts of the assessee, held the same as having been sourced out of the unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 5 Noushad Bhayani, Hyderabad. 6. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of A.O., carried

Muthaiah Chettiar Manikandan, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Trichy

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

ITA 694/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 694/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muthaiah Chettiar Manikandan, Ito, 19, Sittal House, Vs. Ward -1 (2), Warners Road, Tiruchirappalli. Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. [Pan: Alapm-0049-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. C.Maruthappan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. C.Maruthappan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

assessment was concluded u/s.144 of the Act dated 25.12.2019, by making an addition of Rs.1,72,85,774/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi. However, the assessee did not respond

Angalaman Ganesh Sankar Mohanna, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 670/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 670/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Angalaman Ganesh Sankar Mohanna, Ito, No.224/48, First Floor, I Agraharam, Vs. Ward -1 (1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. [Pan: Anvpm-1323-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N. V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessment was concluded u/s.144 of the Act dated 22.10.2019, by adding an amount of cash deposit of Rs.11,10,500/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act along with 8% of Rs.1,40,345/- on other credits in the bank of Rs.17,54,323/- as business income

Ankita Ashok Wairkar, Borivali East, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(1) Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai

ITA 895/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: him. II. Reopening is bad in law:

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR. DR.)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in making the addition of Rs. 9,95,226/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of the I T act on the basis that the assessee along with her husband jointly purchased the immovable property of Rs.57 ... Rs.3,85,470/- through her bank account of purchase the property. Thus, the 2 Ankita Ashok Wairkar addition of Rs. 9,95,226/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of the I T act is bad in law. IV. Addition u/s 69A for Cash deposited

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Amalapuram vs. Durga Finance Corporation, Kothapeta

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 255/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

carefully considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. Assessing officer (hereinafter in short “Ld.AO”) added an amount of Rs. 2,07,04,859/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and Rs. 2,21,593/- as interest income appearing in Form 26AS

The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds Co-Op Credit Society Limited No H164, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.249/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Co-Op Credit Society Limited No. H164 Aayakar Bhavan, Parasupeta Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aafat5514L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

I.T.A.No.249/VIZ/2025 The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl& GDS Co-Op Credit Society Limited No. H164 assessee during the demonetization period should not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. In response to the show-cause notice, assessee uploaded his explanation on 11.12.2019. On perusal of the reply ... filed by the assessee, Ld. AO considered an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. 3. Further, Ld. AO also did not accept the explanation provided by the assessee with respect to deduction

Dewarkadhish Developers, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 637/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr-DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

orders were passed under section 147 read with section 144/144B, wherein the AO made additions under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money allegedly received by the assessee. The assessee challenged the reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad

Dewarkadhish Developers, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 636/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr-DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

orders were passed under section 147 read with section 144/144B, wherein the AO made additions under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money allegedly received by the assessee. The assessee challenged the reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad

Dewarkadhish Developers, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 635/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr-DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

orders were passed under section 147 read with section 144/144B, wherein the AO made additions under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money allegedly received by the assessee. The assessee challenged the reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad

Parijatham Ravula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 31/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

cash deposit from the assessee. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee and treated the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. AO accordingly added Rs.37,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee and completed the assessment

Ravi Thiyagarajan, Attur vs. ITO Ward 1(6), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 736/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.735 & 736/Chny/2025 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Ravi Thiyagarajan :- 3 -: has made the addition of Rs. 22,78,200/- to the income of the assessee on account of cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee further challenged the orders of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act before the ld.CIT

Ravi Thiyagarajan, Attur vs. ITO Ward 1(6), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.735 & 736/Chny/2025 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Ravi Thiyagarajan :- 3 -: has made the addition of Rs. 22,78,200/- to the income of the assessee on account of cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee further challenged the orders of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act before the ld.CIT

Shri Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, Anjar Kutch vs. The Addl. CIT, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 220/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 269Section 269SSection 270ASection 69A

made payment in cash when he is having a savings bank account, hence the amount of INR 80,000/- is to be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of IT Act. Further, the gift provided by wife comes under purview of provision of Section 269SS of IT Act, accordingly ... total income of the assessee is computed as under :- Returned Income Rs.2,20,500/- Cash payment made to be considered Rs.1,80,000/- as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act Total Income Rs.4,00,500/ 9. That being aggrieved the Appellant filed an appeal in Form 35 before

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1038/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1037/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, बनाम / Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

computation of income. 6. In para 6 of the assessment order for the A.Yr. 2013-14 an addition of income under the head “unexplained money" of Rs.16,50,000 was made. These cash deposits were out of cash withdrawals on different dates during the year and balance cash-in-hand

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. ITO, Daman

ITA 1036/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Vs. Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For Different Years Are As Under:

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1035/SRT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Vs. Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

computation of income. 6. In para 6 of the assessment order for the A.Yr. 2013-14 an addition of income under the head “unexplained money

Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 249/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 24.08.2021 by making the following additions:- a. Unexplained Income u/s. 69A of the Act : Rs.24,21318/- b. Unexplained Money u/s. 69A of the Act : Rs.35,00,000/- c. Unexplained Expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act: Rs.15,82,400/- Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar 4. Being aggrieved ... jewellery, etc. may be deemed to be his income for such financial year." 2. It also submitted that the assessment under Sec 69A as unexplained money is incorrect. Sec 69A provides for "unexplained money". The verbatim Sec 69A is reproduced below for your kind perusal as follows:- "Where

Venkata Lakshmi Padmavathi Uppalapu, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward - 2(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 299/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Page No. 2 LT.A.No.299/VIZ/2025 Venkata Lakshmi Padmavathi Uppalapu oi Rs. 1,97,81,600/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money and determined total income of the assessee at Rs.1,98,61,220/-. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ... B.N.S.S.S. Subrahmanyam (AP HC): Confirmed that income shown to be from agriculture cannot be treated as unexplained. 7. Misapplication of Section 69A (Unexplained Money) Section 69A is applicable only when the source of money is unsubstantiated or false. In this case: The appellant has clearly explained the source as agricultural

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam vs. Varun Raj, Pathanamthitta

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 189/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 10(26)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

based persons/entities Rs. 96,40,106/- 6. The assessing officer had brought to tax the above sum of Rs. 2,56,84,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the alleged failure of the assessee to offer any plausible explanation in support of the source of above mentioned investment