← 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

Roby Roopesh Poonattil, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 245/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roby Roopesh Poonattil .......... Appellant Poonathil House, North Beypore, Kozhikode 673015 [Pan: Akhpr5461P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 250(6)

total income of Rs. 38,53,710/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 2 Roby Roopesh Poonattil 34,34,508/- as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the availability of opening cash balance of Rs. 2,65,000/-, sale of gold, etc. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal

Sree Narayana Public, Karunagapally vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 238/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Narayana Public School .......... Appellant Pavumba, P.O., Karunagapplly 690574 [Pan: Aants1510Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Alappuzha .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 2

first day of demonetisation was Rs. 1,71,129/-. The balance of Rs. 7,72,941/- was brought to tax as unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being ... issue that arises for my consideration is whether the AO is justified in treating the cash deposits in SBN during the demonetisation period as unexplained money of the appellant trust. The facts as emanate from the record are that the appellant is a trust running education institutions. The explanation offered

Asharaf, Mannanchery vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 235/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asharaf .......... Appellant Bismillah Manzil, Mannancherry, Alappuzha 688538 [Pan: Bagpa7886R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -1 & Tps, Alappuzha

For Appellant: Shri Bijumon Antony, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44A

Accordingly he estimated the profit at Rs. 5,92,823/-. The AO also made addition of cash deposit in SBN during demonetisation period as unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 05.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

Piyush Sharma, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 855/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshipiyush Sharma, Income Tax Officer, बना B 03, Nikhil Bunglows, 2(3), म/ Phase Iii, Bhopal Vs. Near Vrindavan Garden, Hoshngabad, Bhopal (Pan: Aiupp4609A) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

deposit in his saving bank account. As a result whole of the cash deposit amounting to Rs. 25,13,000/- is being treated as unexplained money and was added to the total income of the assessee. 2.7 The Ld. A.O basis aforesaid determined the assessee total income of the assessee

Mohammad Ahatehsham, Raebareli vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 438/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

hands of the assessee by treating the entire cash deposits of Rs.2,65,51,250/- made in bank account maintained with Allahabad Bank as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act by not appreciating the fact that the entire cash deposits were made out of cash sales which stood duly ... aforesaid notices, the ld. AO concluded that he had no explanation to make in this regard and therefore, he considered the deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and brought them to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income

Pinkesh Subhashchandra Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 391/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 391/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkesh Subhashchandra The Income Tax Officer Patel Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad Vs. 116, Sardar Chowk, Near Dairy, Tal. Petlad, Bharel, Dist. Anand, Gujarat 388480 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bgrpp8413J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr 04/02/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 02.02.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 69A

said cash of Rs 17,72,500/- deposited in SBNs/HDNS during demonetization period. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 17,72,500/- as unexplained money as per provisions of section 69A of the Act is hereby made and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC

Mashrubhai Karnaji Rabari, Banaskantha vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1920/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.5,28,850/- u/s. 69A, thereby treating entire cash deposited during demonetization as an unexplained money. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.5,28,850/- to returned income which

Kishor Prahaladrai Asawa, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1796/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

glitches, the same were not received by the assessee which has resulted in passing exparte assessment order making addition of Rs.13,88,527/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and Rs.30,42,200/- on purchase of Gold in commodity trading and demanded tax thereon. 4. On appeal before

Versibhai Thakor, Patan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Patan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 69A

facts in upholding the action of the AO of treating the cash deposited of Rs.14,18,000/- in bank accounts as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal pertains to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found ... know. 6. DECISION: The appellant in its ground of appeal assailed the AO in making addition of Rs. 1418000 being cash deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and further making addition of Rs.2372282 being credit entries in bank account as unexplained money

Pravin Narayan Attarde, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 267/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by AO u/s.69A of the act by treating the cash deposits in Axis Bank Account as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the fact that the same was out of withdrawals made earlier from ICICI and other bank account. 2 Pravin Narayan ... confirming the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- made by AO u/s.69A of the act by treating the cash deposits in Axis Bank Account as unexplained money of the appellant by merely observing that there is huge time gap between the date of the cash withdrawn (17.12.2015) and the actual deposit

R1618 Varadharajapuram Pacs, Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruchirappalli

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

ITA 588/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.588/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 R 1618 Varadharajapuram Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agri. Co-Op. Society, 6/69A, Ward 2, Thirunarayanapuram, Tiruchirapalli. Tiruchirapalli 621 203. [Pan:Aabar2403E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

said 3 I.T.A. No.588/Chny/25 money/deposits/credits and offered for taxation, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of ₹.6,16,68,376/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and chargeable to tax under section 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.585/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 13A, 1 Paramasivampalayam, Ward 2(1), Vayakkadu Thottam, Somanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 663. [Pan:Arypb4707C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 242 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee again failed to comply with the same. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of ₹.1,03,00,000/- as unexplained money and assessed under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want

Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.582/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 669/2, Kuttuputhur Main Road, Ward 2, Mohanur Oruvandur Post, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Dwbps4361A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned, in which the assessee

Arumugam Sivasankaran, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddaore

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

ITA 553/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Sivasankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 160, National Agencies Ward 4, Main Road, Vasistapuram, Tittagudi, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 606 106. [Pan:Adqps5673J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

assessee made cash deposit during the demonetization period to the tune of ₹.2,60,000/- in SBNs and accordingly, treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. As not satisfied with the order of the Assessing Officer ... addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned, in which the assessee

Jcr Traders, Keelamathur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Trichy, Trichy

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

ITA 333/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jcr Traders, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 2/117, Thittakudi Road, Income Tax, Keelamathur, Tamil Nadu 621 173. Circle 1(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aalfj6942K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 93 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 69

total income at ₹.2,31,87,090/-, inter alia, making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as addition towards unexplained money under section 69 of the Act. Not satisfied with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

ITO Ward-1, Kolar vs. Sayedsaleem Sayedriyazahmed Savanur, Kolar

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

ITA 1479/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

been rejected. In view of the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered view that the addition of Rs.7.27,13,000 as unexplained money u/s.09A of the Act is not sustainable and is directed to be deleted. The appeal on this ground is thus allowed.” 8. From

DCIT, Circle-3, Thane vs. Jaimuni Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Vasai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 990/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80

cash balance as on 08/11/2016, amounting to Rs.94,18,271/-. The Ld.AO thus made addition in the hands of the assessee u/s.69A as unexplained money by observing that onus to prove gennuiness of the transaction in cast on the assessee along with the source of such credits, which could ... allowed. …………………….. 8.3 I have thoroughly examined the submission of the appellant and the facts of the case concerning the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A, amounting to Rs. 94,18,271/-. The appellant explained that the money received in demonetized currency during the demonetization period was related

Anup Ajay Dandapat, Nallasopara vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Thane

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

ITA 657/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR.)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

learned AO erred in making addition of Rs. 63,23,651/-by arbitrarily adding cash deposit made in bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE thereby a. Disregarding the fact that the cash deposit were out of the sums received from his customers to whom loan were given ... dated 01.03.2024, determining the total income at Rs. 66,84,061/- after making an addition of Rs. 63,23,651 as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, under the normal provisions as well as u/s. 115BBE of the Act. The ld. AO also initiated penalty u/s 271AAC

Ratnaravi Metal Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ofiicer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble1.T.A. No. 268/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272ASection 69A

case and in law, the Learned officer erred in adding Rs.1,54,64,948/- to the total income of appellant on account of "Unexplained Money" u/s 69A. 4, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271F ... condoned. 16. I say that the delay, in filing appeal before CIT(A), is completely unintentional. 17. I say that no transactions involving unexplained money has been undertaken, and that all cash deposits originate from cash in hand or withdrawals made in earlier years due to demonetisation, with no undisclosed

Akshay Arun Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Panvel

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1310/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleakshay Arun Shetty Ito – 2 Panvel - 410206 Flat No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Shree Chs, Maharashtra. Sector 3E, Kalamboli, Vs Navi Mumbai – 410218 Maharashtra

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal w.r.t. addition of the cash deposits of Rs. 20,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. 2. The Appellant prays and requests the Hon'ble ITAT to restore the matter to the file of the Learned A.O. and provide