← 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

Leela Dutt Sharma, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 62,89,450 as unexplained money under section 69A, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or documentary evidence to justify the source of cash deposits in her Canara Bank account ... order. This was more-so when the remand report was never confronted to the appellant. Issue: Addition of Rs. 62,89,45/- held as unexplained money u/s 69A 6.3 Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a retail & wholesale trader of stationery goods. He is proprietor of M/s Sharna Enterprises

Seema Rani Bansal, Raikot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Raikot

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1244/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1244/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Seema Rani Bansal Ito Ward-1 C/O M/S Ambari Ram Bal Krishan बनाम/ Ludhiana Grain Market Vs. Raekot – 141109 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aegpb-7906-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Marwaha (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Marwaha (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

assessee was reopened for this year. Since the assessee failed to make any submissions during assessment proceedings, Ld. AO added the same as unexplained money to the returned income of Rs.5.66 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 201 days ... account is a disclosed bank account which has trading receipts of the assessee. On these facts, entire deposits could not be held to be unexplained money. To plug any possible leakage of revenue, we estimate lump sum addition of Rs.2 Lacs in the hands of the assessee and delete

The Patran B R Chbs Limited Dhandial Road Near Post Office, Patran S.O Patran Patiala, Punjab vs. The Assessment Units NFAC Delhi Jao Income Tax Officer Ward Samana at Patiala, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1038/CHANDI/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29-12- 2023. The assessment has been framed on best judgment basis wherein Ld. AO made addition of unexplained money u/s 69A for Rs.614.79 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of 2 condonation of delay of 65 days

The Patran B R Chbs Limited Dhandial Road Near Post Office, Patran S.O Patran Patiala, Punjab vs. The Assessment Unit NFAC Delhi Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward Samana, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1037/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29-12- 2023. The assessment has been framed on best judgment basis wherein Ld. AO made addition of unexplained money u/s 69A for Rs.614.79 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of 2 condonation of delay of 65 days

Shilpa Rakeshbhai Sheth, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1863/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,95,57,754/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the act? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... with the income declared in the return of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 33,95,57,754/- u/s. 69A as unexplained money and Rs. 22,94,024/- u/s. 68 as I.T.A No. 1863/Ahd/2024 Shilpa Rakeshbhai Sheth, A.Y. 2014-15 unexplained credits. The assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s

Rajesh Mangilal Khandelwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 251/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Kahndelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

along with the reasons recorded for carrying out the reassessment proceedings. The Ld.AO concluded the proceedings making addition u/sec. 69A of the Act for unexplained money of Rs.2,48,96,098/- and assessed the total income at Rs.2,53,63,698/-. 5. The assessee challenged the impugned addition before

Deepak Kapurchand Shaha Kothari, Raigad vs. ITO Ward-1 Panvel, Panvel East

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

ITA 1084/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Mr. Mohammed Shahab KhanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

bank account, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. The Ld. AO also made the addition of Rs. 90,92,250/- as unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee and treated the other deposits

Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/KOL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.364/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd………………………………………...….……….Appellant 21, Parsee Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaecs0680H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,51,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As The Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai Under Project Falcon Regarding Coordinated & Premediated Trading On The Bombay Stock Exchange By Engaging In Reversal Trades In Illiquid Stock Options Resulting In Non-Genuine Business Loss/Gains To The Beneficiary Assessees & That The Present Assessee Is A Party To Such Manipulation. From The Data Made Available Under Project Falcon On The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the loss to the tune of Rs.28,38,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.32,89,050/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

Ram Kaur Singh, Kolkata vs. Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant 8, Mansarala Lane, Khiderpore, Kolkata – 700023. [Pan: Alhps2735G] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navans Shah, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 264 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, The Case Of

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

satisfy with the submissions made by the assessee and made the addition of Rs.6,79,500/- cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.5,60,000/- on account of municipal tax payment made by the assessee. Accordingly, both the amounts were

Gangadas Jakkula, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(1)(5), Mumbai (Present Jao- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad

ITA 456/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy Sgangadas Jakkula, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(1)(5), 4-130, Near Cheruvukatta, Mumbai (Present Jao-Income Tax Dharpally, Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad) Nizamabad,Telangana-503 165 Pan : Afbpj0793H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghurm (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande (Sr AR)
Section 144Section 250Section 69C

against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO amount to Rs.2,11,09,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69C of the Act, made during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee filed return of income on 13.10.2017 by declaring total income ... income of the assessee amount to Rs.2,14,16,300/-. The Ld. AO confirmed the addition amount to Rs.2,11,09,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69C of the Act.Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) during the course

Govind Kabra Bhadricha, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4495/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy Sgovind Kabra Bhadricha Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre 1 Pujya Maa Niwas,Ghatia (Nfac) / Acit 27(1), Room No.415, 4Th Floor, Tower Village Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 No.6, Vashi Railway Station Pan : Agupb1942J Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande (Sr AR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 274Section 69A

taxed as income u/s 69A r.w.s. 11588E of the IT Act, 1961 under the head income from other sources as unexplained money. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act for under reporting the income is initiated separately for income of Rs. 59.94,000/-.” 6. We have heard

Glossy Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the both the appeals (ITA No

ITA 455/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.454 & 455/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Glossy Ceramics Private Ltd. Vs. Assessment Unit 8 A, National Highway, Income Tax Department At Dhuva, Wankaner "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3069P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: None/ Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

appellant assessee are here rejected. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing officer amounting to Rs 95,30,010/-on account of unexplained money U/s 69A of the Income-tax act 1961 is hereby UPHELD. The ground of the appellant is rejected. ITA No. 454 & 455/Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-15) GLOSSY

Glossy Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the both the appeals (ITA No

ITA 454/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.454 & 455/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Glossy Ceramics Private Ltd. Vs. Assessment Unit 8 A, National Highway, Income Tax Department At Dhuva, Wankaner "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3069P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: None/ Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

appellant assessee are here rejected. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing officer amounting to Rs 95,30,010/-on account of unexplained money U/s 69A of the Income-tax act 1961 is hereby UPHELD. The ground of the appellant is rejected. ITA No. 454 & 455/Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-15) GLOSSY

Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1294/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 2/7, Dastan, Palsana, Surat – Ward - 1, 394 310 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bvopp8701K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shrijignesh Parikh, Ar With Shri Marufkhan Pathan, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

section 144 of the Act and ITA No.1294/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Prafulbhai Jagabhai Patel held that the source of the cash/credit deposits of Rs.83,42,688/- is unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.83

Tangudu Ananda Rao, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 182/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Tangudu Ananda Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Abipt5195K Srikakulam. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Assessment Unit, NFAC is not justified in treating an amount of Rs. 5,01,500/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A and the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in confirming an amount of Rs. 3,01,500/- as unexplained money

Ajeet Kumar Rampuria, Tonk vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Tonk

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

ITA 44/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

investment. However the other essential ingredients of the sections such as the burden of proof with regard to the source of the credits or unexplained money. test of satisfaction, are common to both sections and hence the judicial decisions on section 68 will also be relevant for section 69 respectively

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

observed as under: Extract from headnotes Section 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash)-Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized at premises of employee of a trust where assessee was a trustee, a show cause notice was issued ... unless forbidden from doing so by the statute......" (p. 460) Thus the unaccounted income of the appellant is hereby held to be taxable as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and also alternatively as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

observed as under: Extract from headnotes Section 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash)-Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized at premises of employee of a trust where assessee was a trustee, a show cause notice was issued ... unless forbidden from doing so by the statute......" (p. 460) Thus the unaccounted income of the appellant is hereby held to be taxable as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and also alternatively as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

observed as under: Extract from headnotes Section 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash)-Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized at premises of employee of a trust where assessee was a trustee, a show cause notice was issued ... unless forbidden from doing so by the statute......" (p. 460) Thus the unaccounted income of the appellant is hereby held to be taxable as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and also alternatively as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal

Swati Balasahebpukale, Pune vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2093/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 69A

appeal on merits. 3. The learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs 66,07,700 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the ITA, 1961. The learned I-T authorities ought to have appreciated that the 2 ITA.No.2093/PUN./2024 (Swati Balasaheb Pukale ... ITA.No.2093/PUN./2024 (Swati Balasaheb Pukale) order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs. 74,43,670/- as unexplained money / deposit u/s 69A of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not intentional. He submitted