← 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

Holadagadde Halappagowda Devaraj, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 2361/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)
Section 271Section 69A

that the assessee is unable to substantiate the cash deposit of Rs.71 lakhs, therefore, the entire 71 laksh was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 4. Against this, the assessee filed appeal before NFAC Delhi on 24/01/2020. The NFAC issued notices on 29/01/2021, 5/8/2023, 21/8/2021

Mitra Sen, Dehradun vs. DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun

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

ITA 146/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Mitra Sen, Vs. Dcit, 148, Tiparpur, Sabhawala, Central Circle, Sahasp, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dwbps4412J Assessee By : Shri D. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

same was not disclosed in the updated return filed by the assessee on 14.03.2022, the ld AO proceeded to treat the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before

Swiss Lifestyle, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.25/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Swiss Lifestyle Naidu Complex, Near Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Acgfs7296G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 44ASection 68

excessive. 3 M/s.Swiss Lifestyle Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur 8. The learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs.30,48,500/- as unexplained money u/s.68 without pointing out any defect in the books of accounts and CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same, therefore order passed is unjustified ... made addition of balance amount of total cash deposits made in SBNs i.e. Rs.30,48,530/- [Rs.35,48,500/- (-) Rs.5,00,000/-] as unexplained money u/s.68 of the Act and invoked section 115BBE of the Act. Finally, the A.O made a separate addition of Rs.8,86,366/- @ 1.87% by adopting

M/S Jmd Crusher, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

Income tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding order of learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,20,34,300/- treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and charging it to higher rate of tax under Sec. 115BBE of the Act. M/s JMD Crusher ... assessee failed to respond, therefore, after M/s JMD Crusher Vs. ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur deliberations Ld. AO made an addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained money on account of cash deposits in bank account to the tune of Rs. 2,20,24,300/-, also added estimated profit

M/S Jmd Crusher, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Bastar

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 103/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

Income tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding order of learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,20,34,300/- treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and charging it to higher rate of tax under Sec. 115BBE of the Act. M/s JMD Crusher ... assessee failed to respond, therefore, after M/s JMD Crusher Vs. ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur deliberations Ld. AO made an addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained money on account of cash deposits in bank account to the tune of Rs. 2,20,24,300/-, also added estimated profit

M/S Jmd Crusher, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer-Jagdalpur, Bastar

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 102/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69A

Income tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding order of learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,20,34,300/- treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and charging it to higher rate of tax under Sec. 115BBE of the Act. M/s JMD Crusher ... assessee failed to respond, therefore, after M/s JMD Crusher Vs. ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur deliberations Ld. AO made an addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained money on account of cash deposits in bank account to the tune of Rs. 2,20,24,300/-, also added estimated profit

Lalita Dheeraj Junghare, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 360/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69ASection 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the net agricultural income of Rs. 1,22,25,758 cannot constitute unexplained money under section 2 Lalita Dheeraj Junghare ITA no.360/Nag./2024 69A of the Act and the addition so made is thus grossly illegal and which deserves ... failed to prove the genuineness of the agricultural activities and the nature and source of acquisition of money remains unexplained. Section 69A reads thus: 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

Jayeshkumar Jayendrabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(2), Baroda Aykar Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara 390007, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2026/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

held that a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs cash deposited is not from the withdrawals made by the assessee, therefore, added the same as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before ... facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT Appeals has erred both in law and in facts confirming cash deposit of Rs. 500000 as unexplained money. Even there is a calculation mistake. He ought to have accepted a this amount as reasonable availability of cash on hand considering the? documents

Ramkrushna Natha Agalme, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2246/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A. Makawane
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Income Tax Act 1961 treating the amount of cash deposit during the year under consideration as unexplained money without appreciating that appellant is not found in possession of any money or bullion etc. as mentioned in the section 69A. 4] The Ld. AO has erred in making addition

Nagaraju Kalidas, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 220/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

forth with any explanation qua the source of the aforesaid cash deposits, therefore, the A.O was constrained to treat the entire amount as his unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Apart from that, the Assessing Officer made an addition of certain incomes that had surfaced in the course

Gagan Khurana HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-29(4), Delhi

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

ITA 5508/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgagan Khurana Huf, Vs. Ito, 63, A-8, Kalkaji Extn, Ward-29(4), New Delhi-110019 Delhi Pan: Aaghg0974D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

assessment stood completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.11.2019 wherein, the cash deposit of Rs. 11,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money by the ld AO. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) and furnished all the details by way of additional evidences

Praveen Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-35, Delhi

ITA 491/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2017-18 Parveen Gupta, Vs. Acit, E-2/97, 98, Sector 16, Rohini, Central Circle-35, Delhi, Pin: 1100 89 Delhi Pan No. Amkpg9561C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

inter- related pertains to confirmation of the addition of a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act treating as unexplained money. 4. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed ... treating as unexplained money rejecting the contention of the assessee by not appreciating merits of the case as he appears to ignored the true facts of the case and documents submitted by the assessee while holding that the appellant could not explain the source of cash

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

during demonetization period, the entire cash deposits to an extent of ₹.11,10,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. 5. The assessee carried the matter

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

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

ITA 262/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

during demonetization period, the entire cash deposits to an extent of ₹.11,10,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. 5. The assessee carried the matter

Mr. Palani, Chennai vs. ITO, Cirlce(OSD)-1, Trichy

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

ITA 261/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

during demonetization period, the entire cash deposits to an extent of ₹.11,10,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. 5. The assessee carried the matter

Subramanian Karuppannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(4), Tambaram

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

ITA 177/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.177/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Subramanian Karuppannan, The Income Tax Officer, No.40, Kamarajar Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-22(4), West Tambaram, Tambaram. Chennai – 600 045. [Pan: Aiqps 9488J]

For Appellant: Ms. Nikitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

result, the A.O passed assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r/w.s 144B of the Act, making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act for unexplained money, thereby assessing total income of Rs.1,49,93,805/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with delay of 112 days

Thenraj, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

ITA 3123/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleshri Thenraj, The Income Tax Officer, Chennai Sun Power, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2) No.17/3, Erikarai Street, Chennai. Nerkundram, Chennai- 600107. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan:Adlpt-9671-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Dated 15.10.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 69Section 69A

case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.35,32,500/- being the cash deposits in SBNs during demonetisation period as unexplained money in terms of Section 69A in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC, Delhi to appreciate ... Delhi failed to appreciate that having not examined the books of accounts, which were made available at every stage of proceedings, the presumption of unexplained money should be reckoned as wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. 6. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having not rejected the audited

Raghunandan Bhomia, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 5724/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

return of income and requested for the reasons recorded; and secondly, he has challenged the addition of Rs.34,69,337/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained jewellery. 3. The brief facts are that assessee is an individual and was under the employment of Yashovardhan Birla group. A search

Mr. Babulal D. Bokadia, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane

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

ITA 4435/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 133ASection 69A

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by confirming the addition relating to unexplained money and the addition relating to estimation of profits. 2 2. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading ... report given by the survey officials, the AO rejected the book results. Accordingly, he assessed the cash deposit of Rs.2,09,22,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the AO noticed that the assessee has declared total turnover of Rs.3,90,71,272/- in the profit

Pukhraj Kundanmal Shah, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 133ASection 145(3)

accounts through the fictitious sales bills in the month of October and Nov. 2016 and that during the demonetization the appellant deposited his own unexplained money (cash-in-hand) in bank accounts and created the cushion for the unexplained cash which it wanted to cover under the garb of cash ... treated as genuine and the remaining balance of Rs. 1,80,91,436/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A and is being taxed at special rate u/s 115BBE Further penalty 271AAC are being initiated separately in view of the additions being made u/s 69A read with 115BBE". 5. Being