“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

Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT - Central Circle, 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 2182/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar

Section 132

deleted the addition on account of suppression of sale, however confirmed addition of Rs. 2,28,98,000/- on account of cash found as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) on legal grounds as well as on merit ... result, this addition leads to the same income being taxed twice. 8.7 Regarding the addition of Rs. 2,28,98,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A, the AO’s reasoning in the assessment order has been extracted hereunder for reference: "25. It has been established clearly that, the assessee

Deepak Kumar, Gaziabad vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Deepak Kumar, Vs Acit, Ward No.2, Behta Haipur, Ncc Dit(S), Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, Jhandewala Ext., Uttar Pradesh-201102 New Delhi Pan-Cbkpp0414L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Kuashik, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 250Section 69A

received on wedding and past savings. AO has not accepted the explanation given by the assessee and made addition of INR 29.00 Lakhs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act. The said order was passed u/s 153A r.w.s

Nagar Panchayat, Banda vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sagar, Sagar

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

ITA 118/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('AO) in adding a sum of Rs. 68,21,182/- to the income of the assessee u/s. 69A as unexplained money. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable ... further submitted that the ld. AO had passed the order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act by considering the deposits as unexplained money, without considering the fact that the assessee was a local authority that was exempt from tax. It was submitted that this could have ascertained from

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Ragvani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2144/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 690Section 69ASection 69C

source of cash withdrawals has been explained as being for business purposes the partial redeposit of such withdrawn amount cannot be treated as unexplained money under section 69A. 3.3 The Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that confirmation of both the additions - the withdrawals under section ... treating the labour expenses as unexplained expenses and also addition of Rs. 60,000/- u/s. 69A treating the same as unexplained money related to cash deposit. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. I.T.A

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Ragvani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2143/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 690Section 69ASection 69C

Balasaheb Kushaba Nivangune, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Pune

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

ITA 2791/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Balasaheb Kushaba Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Ninvangune, S. No.41, Plot No.41, Jadhav Nagar, Vadagaon Budruk, Pune- 411041. Pan : Afmpn4866Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 28.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 19.12.2019 By The Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.12,69,000/- On Account Of Money Deposited In Cash In Bank Account During

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

cash in bank account during 2 demonetization period without appreciating that this amount also was part of the business receipt and it was not unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the IT Act. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5 ... unexplained during the appellate proceedings also. 4 Accordingly, it is clear that the AO rightly made additions of Rs.12,60,000/- on account of unexplained money and Rs.5.12.181/- on account of unexplained investment. In view of the failure of the appellant in substantiating the above mentioned transactions, grounds of appeal

Raghoba Ramchandra Sadekar, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kudal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1500/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni

Section 69A

assessee is that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.56,50,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act for unexplained money in respect of cash deposit in the bank account. 4. Before moving to adjudicate the grounds on merit, we take note on an application

Mira Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2635/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2635/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mira Ghosh,………………………..………..…………Appellant 22/H/113, Raja Manindra Road, Paikpara, Kolkata-700037 [Pan:Avkpg1522G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 68Section 69A

Post Office account. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,14,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 12 days

Amaravathi Basavana Gowda, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 202/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sheela M G, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 250Section 69A

doing trading in agricultural products, the assessee had not filed any supporting documents and therefore the assessing officer had treated the said 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) and contended that the income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan vs. Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanshta Maryadit, Bhiwandi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 988/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 12Section 143(3)Section 3Section 69ASection 69aSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee is chargeable under the head “Income from other sources”. Further, ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,9786,879/- u/s.69A as unexplained money holding, it represents cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016to 30.12.2016. In this respect, assessee had contended that

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip D Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

failed to explain the deposits shown in the Base Note in his bank account in this financial year. The balance reflected therein is his unexplained money. Therefore, an amount of Rs.19,48,46,625/- in the undisclosed bank account of the Assessee in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland

Clifford Dominic Colaco, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Natioanal Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1111/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20) Clifford Dominic Colaco V/S. Assessment Unit B 521, Ganesh Darshan, बिधम Umarkhade Road, Chinch Bunder, Maharashtra- 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpc8794L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. Chanchal GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

follows: (1) Addition of Rs 1,71,52,519/- as unexplained credit u/s.68 (2) Addition of Rs. 2,58,12,178/-as unexplained money u/s 69A. Aggrieved by assessment order the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 26.03.2024, Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC ... completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 4,35,07,984/- after making the following additions: Unexplained money u/s 69A Rs. 2,58,12,178/- P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2019-20 Clifford Dominic Colaco Unexplained expenditure

Mohit Sukhija, New Delhi vs. Nfa, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4661/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

dated 29.03.2022, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 18,11,250/- by making addition of Rs.14,92,500/- u/s. 69A towards unexplained money being cash deposited during demonetization period in SBN. 5. Against the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned

Pawan Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 1745/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarma No.136/Del/2022 (In Ita No.1745/Del/2021) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) & Pawan Kumar Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (8), C-88, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan: Acxpj0814C) (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant/Assessee By : Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2025 Date Of Order : 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Misc. Application Is Filed By The Applicant/Assessee Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.1745/Del/2021 Dated 28.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13 For Recalling Of The Said Order. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Filed The Appeal Before Itat, Bench-G Vide Ita No. 1745/Del/2021 & Accordingly, The Matter Is Fixed For Hearing On 28.02.2022, However, During The Hearing

For Appellant: Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by making the addition of Rs.18,16,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money in form of cash deposited in his bank account under Section 69A. He submitted that aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee has filed

Sadhana Gupta, Mainpuri vs. ITO, Ward4(2), 4, Mainpuri

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act : Additions made by AO and 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 confirmed by CIT(Appeals) Unexplained money on a/c of cash 1,04,76,914 1,41,48,286 1,47,35,213 deposits/credits in bank account u/s. 69A Undisclosed short term capital

Sadhana Gupta, Mainpuri vs. ITO, Ward4(2), 4, Mainpuri

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Sadhana Gupta, Mainpuri vs. ITO, Ward4(2), 4, Mainpuri

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/AGR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Vinod Kumar Singhal, Morena vs. ITO-1, Morena

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

deposit in his bank account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid cash deposit of Rs.15,86,000/- to the income of assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, vide assessment order dated 25.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

Islauddin, Jodhpur vs. ITO-Phalodi, Phalodi

ITA 800/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 69A

assessee failed to furnish any details related to nature and source of above amount credited in his bank account, the same is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T Act, 1961. Finally AO was left with no option but to make addition u/s 69A. 5.6 In view ... this regard, it would be apt to refer to the definition of Section 69A of Income Tax Act, which is reproduced below: Section 69A “Unexplained money, etc.- Where in any financial year, the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Jammu vs. Anita Kapahi, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 557/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

Nishant Construction (P.) Ltd. reported at [2019] 101 taxmann.com 180 (SC)has held as under. "Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained money (On money) Assessee was engaged in construction and development of housing projects - It was subjected to survey operation during which certain documents were found