← 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

Rupa Vipul Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 5493/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R. Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

this respect, assessee was show caused to explain as to why the amount of Rs.2,61,20,332/- should not be treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3.2. Assessee furnished her reply stating that she had only three bank accounts, details of which is tabulated below. According ... that is after reducing the amount of cheque bounce. To conclude the assessment, amount of Rs. 78,86,347/- was treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before

Rupa Vipul Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 5492/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R. Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

this respect, assessee was show caused to explain as to why the amount of Rs.2,61,20,332/- should not be treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3.2. Assessee furnished her reply stating that she had only three bank accounts, details of which is tabulated below. According ... that is after reducing the amount of cheque bounce. To conclude the assessment, amount of Rs. 78,86,347/- was treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4732/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs. 7,32,03,585/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. ITA No. 4686 to 4689 & 4732/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13) Hemant Madhusudan Sheth 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs. 7,32,03,585/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. ITA No. 4686 to 4689 & 4732/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13) Hemant Madhusudan Sheth 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4688/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs. 7,32,03,585/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. ITA No. 4686 to 4689 & 4732/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13) Hemant Madhusudan Sheth 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4687/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs. 7,32,03,585/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. ITA No. 4686 to 4689 & 4732/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13) Hemant Madhusudan Sheth 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4686/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs. 7,32,03,585/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. ITA No. 4686 to 4689 & 4732/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13) Hemant Madhusudan Sheth 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before

Income Tax Officer, Barabanki vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki, U.P. H. No.9, Bhitariya, Ramsanehighat, H/O Baneekodar, Barabanki, U.P. Pan:Ctjpk3341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 13.03.2004 Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assesseee Against The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 24.09.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. Because On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts While Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 77,96,530/- Under Section 69A Of The I.T Act 1961 By Suo-Moto Taking The Bank Deposits As Turnover & Estimating The Profit @ 8% Of Rs. 95,83,320/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Complete Details Of Bank Deposits, The Same Is Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 1961. 2. That The Order Of Cit (A), Being Erroneous In Law & In Facts Be Cancelled & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored. 3. Any Other Grounds Arose During The Proceedings Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

fact that the assessee has not furnished complete details of bank deposits, the same is added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 1961. 2. That the order of CIT (A), being erroneous in law and in facts be cancelled ... Rs.77,96,359/-. He, therefore, made an addition of Rs.77,96,359/- in the hands of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained money and levied tax upon the same under section 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with this assessment, an appeal was filed

Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel), Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 241/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T. R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 69A

plus other credit entries of Rs. 5,27,352/- in the bank account and added it to the total income of the appellant as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.2. During the appellate proceedings, a remand report was sought from the AO based on the submission made

Manishkumar Ramlakhan Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 6(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 1738/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

added the entire sale I.T.A No. 1738/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 Manishkumar Ramlakhan Agrawal. vs. ITO consideration of Rs.62,42,018/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and also charged to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order ... well as on fact by upholding the addition of Rs. 62,42,018/- u/s. 69A of the Act being genuine sale consideration received as unexplained money and declared as Long Term Capital Gain in return. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact upholding the issue

Haribhai Nathabhai Patel, Sinor, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 1456/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 69A

under section 69A of Income Tax Act. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer has misdirected himself in arriving to conclusion that the appellant is having unexplained money of Rs. 12,15,444/- without having any material on record. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in invoking provision of Section

Rais Nasir Shekh, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 257/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

were issued to the assessee to which there was partial compliance. Ld. AO concluded the proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 making additions of Rs.35.50 lakh as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.11,425/- as Income from other sources, assessed income at Rs.35.61 lakh. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred and appeal before

Pappathi, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-2, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 537/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:537/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pappathi, Ito, No.7/26, Raja Street Vs. Ward 2, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai – 614 616. Pudukkottai – 614 616. [Pan: Akgpp-6709-H] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Ms. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

passed an order u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.23,11,500/- of cash deposit of SBNs as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC

V P Kuhan Feeds and Poultries Pvt. Ltd., Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirupur

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

ITA 486/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 486/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 69A

passed an exparte order u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.23,15,37,155/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act to the returned income. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC

Aravindarajah Rajagopal, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 479/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 479/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aravindarajah Rajagopal, The Income Tax Officer, T2, Sign Residency, Ward-1(2), 15/98, Evr Road, Vs. Trichy. Puthur, Trichy – 620 017. [Pan: Agdpr-1778-H] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143Section 69A

convinced and hence passed an order u/s.143 (3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.35,03,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. 3. The ld.CIT

Karuppannan Kulandaivel, Karungaradu, Salem vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 1(8), Salem

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

ITA 371/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.371/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs Shri Karuppannan Kulandaivel, The Income Tax Officer, 2/4-898, Karungaradu, Ito Ward 1(8), Navapatty (Po), Mettur Taluk, Salem. Salem – 636 452. Pan : Anwpk 1060F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Srivatsan Ranganathan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S R Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Has Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. As Per Information, The Assessee Has Transactions In His Savings

For Appellant: Shri Srivatsan Ranganathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

compliant and hence, the AO passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act by adding the entire cash deposits of Rs.27,49,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 2.1 The ld.CIT

Income Tax Officer, Panaji vs. Anil Raghuvir Sirsat, Parra Bardez

ITA 289/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 289/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

frame the assessment to the best of judgement u/s 144 of the Act whereby the Ld. AO treated former both the bank credits as unexplained money ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 6 ITO Vs Anil Raghuvir Sirsat ITA Nos.289/PAN/2024 AY: 2017-18 u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE ... culminated the proceedings to best of his judgement by treating SBN deposits & sums credited to respondent’s bank accounts as the ‘unexplained money’ u/s 69A of the Act and brought same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. When the matter travelled in appeal, the Ld. NFAC, proceeded without return

Pioneer Education Society, Haryana vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 405/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

payment, TDS thereon etc. Therefore, 50% of the salary and wages, comes to Rs.64,03,650/- was treated by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee. 2.3. With respect to advertisement, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.81 ... Bank account maintained with Axis Bank bearing A/c. No. 915020046778265 has not been disclosed, the sum of Rs.12,40,000/- was held as unexplained money under section 69 and added to the total income of the assessee. 5 Pioneer Education Society Therefore, The ld. Assessing Officer passed the order under

Labhuben Manubhai Mangukiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 773/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.773/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Labhuben Manubhai Mangukiya. Vs. The Ito, 24, Ramkrishna Society, L.H. Road, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat - 395006 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aczpm1695G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

such huge amount from the sources disclosed by her. Hence, the AO was fully justified in making the addition of Rs.27,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. He also upheld levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order

Sir Syed Educational & Welfare Society, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 821/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshisir Syed Educational & Assessment Unit, Social Welfare Society, Income Tax Department, 867, Ankur Complex, Delhi बनाम/ Hb Colony, Koh E Fiza, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacts0888E Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

also not responded. The AO concluded the assessment u/s 144 of the act by adding Rs. 1,70,44,215/- as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. 7.2 Notices u/s 250 were issued several times as under: S.No. Date of notice Due date Mail Delivery