← 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

Yogeshkumar Manaharlal Hajariwala, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 1271/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1271/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Yogeshkumar Manaharlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Hajariwala 3(2)(1), Surat, Room # 416, Vs. A/6, Ambiika Niketan, B/H Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Jalaram Mandir, Diva Road, Surat-395 001 Ankleshwar, Bharuch-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajmpt 4689 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/03/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

assessee are as under: “1. Erred in dismissing appal as ex-parte. 2. Erred in law in confirming addition of Rs.3,91.000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.Erred in law in confirming disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act of Rs.1,13,520/-.” ITA No.1271/SRT/2024/AY.17-18

Viraram Choudhary, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kozhikode

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

ITA 106/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Viraram Choudhary .......... Appellant 17/526-G32, Century Mall Opp. New Bus Stand, Calicut 673004 [Pan: Ahlpv0554G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward 1(4), Kozhikode Appellant By: Shri Rajesh Cherumanalil, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Cherumanalil, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69

during the course of assessment proceedings. In the circumstances, the AO was constrained to make best judgement assessment treating the cash deposit as unexplained money of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds

Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter, Kochi vs. Income Tax Officer, Kochi

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

ITA 1164/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter .......... Appellant Elavungal House, Mahakvi Vailoppilli Road, Palarivattom, Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aagpe8491B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward-2(1), Kochi

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

earlier should be treated available for subsequent deposit. Therefore, the lower authorities were not justified in making addition of Rs. 4,83,500/- as unexplained money of the assessee. Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities are hereby set aside and direct the AO to delete the addition

Malay Shaileshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2193/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 271ASection 69A

treating the entire transaction claimed as short-term capital gain from trading in shares of Appu Marketing Ltd. (later renamed Ejecta Marketing Ltd.) as unexplained money. The AO observed that the assessee purchased 95,000 shares through Khajanchi & Gandhi Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.60 ... appeal notices. 2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming huge addition of Rs.1,66,32,866/- as unexplained money u/s 69A and Rs. 5, 64, 910/-disallowance of short-term capital loss made by AO. ITA No.2193/Ahd/2024 Melay Shaileshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year

Mansukhlal Ratanshi Radia, Anand vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

lower authorities that cash available with assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose, cash so deposited could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. In the case of Jaspal Singh Sehgal 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.), where the assessee submitted detailed cash summary

A Sirkar Co. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1718/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm D.C.I.T., Circle - 12(1), Kolkata A Sirkar Co. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 171/1A, Rash Behari Avenue, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Vs. Kolkata, West Bengal, 700019 West Bengal, 700069 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aacca3682P Assessee By : S/Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Jiendra Kantilal Surti, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025

For Appellant: S/shriFor Respondent: Shri Jiendra Kantilal Surti, DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

parte, without considering the merits of the case. The ld. AR submitted that the addition was made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained money of ₹92,57,000/-, which was stated to be deposited during demonetization period and added by the ld. AO as unexplained cash credit

Income Tax Officer, Balurghat vs. Prakash Chandra Saha, Kushmandi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1585/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chandra Saha, SelfFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

assessed the income at ₹1,97,40,000/- by making an addition of (i) cash withdrawals of ₹1,93,26,069/- as unexplained money and (2) ₹1,90,269/- in respect of contractual receipt. 05. In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee ... 261907.OS From the details filed by the appellant it is noticed that the AO added a sum ofRs. 1,93,26,069/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act without conducting anyenquiries. When the appellant withdraw money from the bank account it cannot betreated as unexplained money

Ramasamy Chokkappan, Tiruchengode vs. ITO Ward 1, Tiruchengode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 87/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.86 & 87/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 69A

taxation in his return of income. In view of the above facts, an amount of Rs.45,42,1000/- is treated and assessed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee further challenged the both ex-parte orders of assessment passed u/s147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act before the ld.CIT

Ramasamy Chokkappan, Tiruchengode vs. ITO Ward 1, Tiruchengode, Triuchengode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 86/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.86 & 87/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 69A

taxation in his return of income. In view of the above facts, an amount of Rs.45,42,1000/- is treated and assessed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee further challenged the both ex-parte orders of assessment passed u/s147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act before the ld.CIT

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A

made addition of Rs.1,00,98,950/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained Investment and Rs.1,11,66,838/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained money. Assessee further challenged the order of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who did not admit

Ajay Dalsukhlal Goradia, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 23(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 217/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

account of disallowance of deductions claimed qua 3 Mr. Ajay Dalsukhlal Goradia income from house property and Rs.54,11,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording various opportunities

Nirmal Purshotam Bhatia, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

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

ITA 3962/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 69A

response by 26.09.2021. However, the AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 by treating the entire bank deposits of Rs.18,75,76,680/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as assessee has failed to give justification. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred the appeal before

Manish Subedar Pandey, Kandavli (E) Mum vs. Ward 33 (2) (3), Mumbai, Bandra East

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1724/MUM/2024[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmanish Subedar Pandey Ito Ward 33(2)(3), Pandey Chawl Saibaba Gokul Nagar, Room No. 848, 8Th Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali East, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Mumbai-400 101 G Block Bandra Kurla Pan: Bdgpp7705M Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil M. Topiwala, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025

Section 2Section 250Section 69A

erred in confirming the order of the learned A.O. treating cash deposit of Rs. 1,86,01,000/- in IDFC Bank and SBI as unexplained money u/s 69A of I.T. Act and adding to the total income of the Appellant (2) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter amend

Mrinal Das, Baksa vs. ITO, Ward - Barpeta Road, Barpeta

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

ITA 255/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69A

addition made by the Ld. AO to the extent of entire turnover shown in the ITR and bringing the same to tax as unexplained money was not justifiable as the Ld. AO could have perused the ITRs for the previous and subsequent years and should have arrived at some reasonable

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a
Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

upon them for holding the renewal of old term deposits (ie. time deposits) with bank as new one aggregating to Rs. 10.94,548/ as unexplained money of the 16 Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust assessee. in support of holding alleged renewal of old term deposits with bank ... assessee as unexplained money there is not a single evidence with the AO in its support. The consensus of judicial opinion in this regard is that there must be some concrete evidence with the AD as to how and on what basis and on what material in hand

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

commission @ 5 % on that amount which was calculated at Rs. 23,87,341/- as unexplained Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT expenditure out of unexplained money for taking accommodation entry in the form of LTCG. 3.3 In the ITR filed the assessee has also claimed an exempt income

Arif Munir, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-(2)(1)(2), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arif Munir V. The Ito(2)(1)(2) 13/397, Vip Road Kanpur Near Green Park Civil Lines, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afjpm1226J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 03 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.02.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 30.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,92,280/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, In Response To The Queries Raised By The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Submission On Behalf Of The Assessee Was That Rs.2,44,000/- Was Deposited In His Bank Account Maintained With Hdfc Bank Limited Out Of His & His Wife’S Past Savings. Not Being Satisfied With The Reply Furnished

For Appellant: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271ASection 69ASection 80C

Delhi Vs Hersh Washesher Chadha, ΙΤΑ 676/2023, in which if respondent/assesse had given specific explanation about the money and the record of the unexplained money is ingress in the bank account then that money cannot be treated as unexplained money under sec 69A. ITA No.06/LKW/2025 Page

Singirikonda Pradeep Kumar, Suryapet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 69A

bank account including cash deposits, made addition of Rs.12,17,461/- u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] as unexplained money and brought to tax under the provisions of sec.115BBE of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned

Ch.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Proddatur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 834/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 37

fact that the assessee had for the subject year not maintained any regular books of account, thus, held the same as his unexplained money. 31. On appeal, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O. upheld the addition of Rs.2.35 lacs (supra) made

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar vs. Chikkaankandhalli Raithara Seva Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Kolar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2419/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar .J, CA
Section 147Section 25CSection 69ASection 80P

members which was later on deposited into the assessee’s bank account and therefore the said deposits could not be treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had also considered the various documents submitted before the AO had come to the conclusion that the cash ... deposits made into the bank account of the assessee cannot be termed as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) before coming to the above said conclusion had also sought for the remand report from the assessing officer on 09/07/2024 in order to give the comments