“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

Mark Foods, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 61,71,452/- on account of payment made for alleged bogus purchase as unexplained money under section 69A merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion.” 3. We first take up appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 for which brief facts are that

Asfiqbal Ismail Jangda, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 963/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs. 3,45,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A. 2. Even otherwise on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the assessing officer

Ghanshyambhai Kanjibhai Gangadia, Surat vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 210/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethi.T(Ss).A. No. 08/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ghanshyambhai Kanjibhai Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Gangadia-Individual, Income Tax, Bungalow No.11, Kantareshvar Central Circle-3, Society, Nr. Balashram, Surat Katargam, Surat-395004 [Pan No.Aawpg3371J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act alleging unexplained money, in respect of advance to IT(SS)A No.08/Srt/2024 & ITA No. 210/Srt/2024 Ghanshyambhai Kanjibhai Gangadia Individual vs. ACIT Asst. Years ... accounts of the assessee to the Assessing Officer for his consideration. However, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. 13. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer with the following observations

Saithu Muhamed, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward -5, Palakkad

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

ITA 167/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Padmanathan K.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)

No.167/Coch/2025. Saithu Muhammed. made an addition of cash deposit in specific bank notes made during the demonetization period as unexplained money of the assessee, rejecting the explanation of appellant that the said deposits were made out of the proceeds collected from various retail dealers of recharge coupon ... whether the AO is justified in making the cash deposits of Rs.2,46,000 in specified bank notes during the demonetization period, as unexplained money of the appellant. From the reading of the assessment order, it is apparent that the appellant made total cash deposits of Rs.3,71,500 during

Molley Jayaprakash, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 432/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Suresh Kumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 115BSection 143(3)

determination is whether the AO is justified in making addition of Rs.34 lakh being cash deposited in the SB account of the appellant as unexplained money. No doubt, the appellant has offered explanation in support of the source of cash deposits made in the bank account. The appellant raised several

Sahab Kur, Kurukshetra vs. ITO Ward No. III, Ward No. III

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 672/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 2(24)Section 69A

these notices or file a return of income. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144, treating the entire deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and adding it to the assessee’s taxable income. 3.1 As per AO, despite multiple opportunities, the assessee ... were duly served, but the assessee remained non-compliant. In the absence of a valid explanation, the AO determined that the deposits constituted unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO also noted discrepancies in the additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings, including mismatches between the sale deed amounts

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 357/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

made by the A.O. considering the credit entries including cash in HDFC bank account No. 12292560001105 amounting to Rs. 5,67,70,140/- as unexplained money U/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961. 2). He has previously erred in law and facts in upholding the ex-party order U/s 144 r.w.s

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 356/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

made by the A.O. considering the credit entries including cash in HDFC bank account No. 12292560001105 amounting to Rs.5,67,70,140/- as unexplained money U/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961. 2). He has previously erred in law and facts in upholding the ex-party order U/s 144 r.w.s.147 without

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 355/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

made by the A.O. considering the credit entries including cash in HDFC bank account No. 12292560001105 amounting to Rs.5,67,70,140/- as unexplained money U/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961. 2). He has previously erred in law and facts in upholding the ex-party order U/s 144 r.w.s.147 without

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 354/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

made by the A.O. considering the credit entries including cash in HDFC bank account No. 12292560001105 amounting to Rs.5,67,70,140/- as unexplained money U/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961. 2). He has previously erred in law and facts in upholding the ex-party order U/s 144 r.w.s.147 without

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 353/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. 1St Floor, Mauryansh Elanza, Shyamal Cross Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम/ V/S. The I.T.O. Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakca 3027 E Assessee By: Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Five Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 To 2017-18 Arising From The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act). Since Common Issues Are Involved, All These Appeals Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

made by the A.O. considering the credit entries including cash in HDFC bank account No. 12292560001105 amounting to Rs.5,67,70,140/- as unexplained money U/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961. 2). He has previously erred in law and facts in upholding the ex-party order U/s 144 r.w.s.147 without

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Cawas Darasha Karaka, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Adjournment application filed

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 49(1)Section 55(2)(a)Section 69A

assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why such sum should not be treated as unexplained money and added as income u/s 69A of the Act. Since no satisfactory reply was filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.61

Sachin Jagdishprasad Agarwal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1567/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Jagdishprasad Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), Pune. O.No.2, Metropole, Near Inox Multiplex, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aappa6250R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao To The Tune Of Rs.13,20,000 Made Under Section 69A On Account Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period In His Bank Account Out Of The Opening Cash Balance Available With Him Which Has Been Arbitrarily Alleged To Be Unexplained. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,20,000/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

explanation and sufficient documentary evidence, the decision of the Assessing Officer in making addition of the cash deposits of Rs. 13,20,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant u/s 69A of the Act is justified and no interference is called for.” 5. It is this order against which ... dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, it was prayed by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the addition made u/s 69A regarding unexplained money of Rs.13,20,000/- being cash deposited during the demonetization period may kindly be deleted, since sufficient cash was available with the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Subramanian Paramasivam, Karur

Appeal is dismissed, thereby the CO filed

ITA 2348/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 154

firm during the appellate proceedings. 3 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount of deposit made would not fetch the character of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, without appreciating that the amount of deposit made by the assessee is out of the unexplained money in his possession ... protectively. In view of this, the addition made by the A.O. in the hands of the Appellant amounting Rs.2,50,00,000/- as unexplained money as per the Provisions of section 69A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Appellant upon this issue are hereby

Mr. Ramchandra Gopalkrishnan, Mumbai vs. Asst.CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the

ITA 548/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) बनाम Mr. Gopalkrishnan Ramchandran Acit, Central Circle – 2(3) 901/902, Rustom Villa, Parsi Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs Colony, Dadar(E), Mumbai - 400014 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaepg3691H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi / Ms. Aadnya Bhandari, Ar राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.03.2025 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of 08.04.2025 Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

cannot considered for A.Y. 2012-13 5 Mr. Ramchandran Gopalkrishnan rather of such payment, even if it is considered as unexplained money relates to A.Y. 2013-14 and no addition can be made in A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. CIT(A) despite accepting such fact confirmed addition made by assessing

Vinod Dedhia Prop. of Jay Ambe Petroleum Services, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1089/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Vinod Dedhia Prop. Of V/S. Income Tax Officer Jay Ambe Petroleum बिधम 20(3)(1), Mumbai Services Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 601/C 201, Pragati 400012 Paradise Co Op Hs, Dr Ambedkar Road, Matunga East 400019 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aqnpd0772F Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar Vaidya/ Shri NitinFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in treating the amount of Rs. 72,53,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A and as a consequence erred in making an addition of Rs. 72,53,000. b) The Id. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not making the addition ... support the abovementioned contentions made by the assessee, Ld. AO proceeded to pass an order u/s. 144 treating the impugned cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessment was accordingly completed vide order dated 27/12/2019, at an income of Rs. 72,53,000/-. Aggrieved with

Prakash R Mehta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3969/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69A

operated by Gautam Jain and Group. The Ld. AO thus after noting detailed modus operandi made addition in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A amounting to Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT ... light of the above findings, facts and circumstances, the assessee is hit by the provisions of section 69A of the Act, which reads: "Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money. bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

Prem Chandra, Bokaro vs. ACIT-DCIT, Bokaro

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

ITA 30/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

compliance and also not explained the source of cash deposit. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added the entire cash deposit of ₹ 16,92,662/- as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act on the ground that the source of this money was not explained

Rajesh Kumar Bhadani, Gaya vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 704/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

unjustified. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs.50,94,500/- u/s 69 treating the same as unexplained money in terms of u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant

Mukesh Kumar Ahuja, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

unexplained investment as per provision of section 69 of the I.T. Act. Similarly, unaccounted excess cash of Rs. 8,90,053/- is considered as unexplained money as per provision of section 69A of the IT Act. Therefore, tax is charged on this offered income as per provision of section 115BBE ... Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655 (Chandigarh - Trib.)Section 69A, read with sections 69B and 28(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Amount disclosed at survey) - Assessment year 2019-20 - During course of survey under section 133A, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables, stating that same