← 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

Pooja Grover, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.93,08,207.53 on account of unsecured loans taken from Shri Umand Grover as unexplained money by invoking the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. BECAUSE the appellant has furnished the complete details of loan ... erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.11,75,000/- on account of unsecured loan taken from Shri Piyush Verma as unexplained money by invoking the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. BECAUSE the appellant has furnished the complete details of loan

Dhirendra Singh, Mirzapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Mirzapur

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

ITA 133/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Singh V. Income Tax Officer Mangraha, Chunar Ward 3(1) Mirzapur Mirzapur Pan:Bipps5569C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025

For Appellant: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

Officer concluded that the increase in capital was from undisclosed sources. He, therefore, added the same to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad. Subsequently, the appeal

Naga Usharani Chirumamilla, Guntur vs. Assiatnt Commissioner of Income Tx, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 492/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 69A

therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs.2,86,69,670/- u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed

Gopal Ji Mishra, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 349/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gopal Ji Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer 6(5) K-1218, Ashiana Lucknow - New Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akjpm8317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 69A

deposit in Sate Bank of India, Jail Road branch - Rs.2,30,000/- ;and (iii) credit entries by way of cheques/transfer - Rs.7,05,904/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act by holding that the said amounts remained unexplained. 4.1 BECAUSE as per the information on record, aggregate cash deposits

Prakashkumar Rajput, Fatepura, Vadodara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Txn., Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1520/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Ketakin Desai, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69A

bank account and ultimately brought in the form of loan in the appellant bank account. This clearly shows that the appellant’s own unexplained money was deposited in his mother's and brother's bank account. Regarding the source of cash deposit in the appellant's bank account of Rs.14 ... find any reason to differ with the finding of the Ld. AO and confirm the addition of Rs. 14,40,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the ground no.3 is dismissed. 5.5 The Ground no.4 is general in nature and does not require adjudication

Pasumarthi Chandrakanth, Kodad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri YV Bhanu Narayana RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 132Section 69A

Officer after considering the relevant statement recorded from the assessee has assessed the additional income towards cash found during the course of search as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act. 3 ITA.No.539/VIZ./2024 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal ... rightly offered the income under the Head “Income from Business”. The Assessing Officer without appreciating the relevant facts, simply assessed the additional income as unexplained money and brought to tax u/sec.115BBE of the Act. The learned CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by taking into

Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee, i

ITA 1088/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

cash seized of 9,00,000/-) is held as unexplained found from the premises of the assessee during the search proceedings is held as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 1158BE of the IT Act. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT (Appeal) and submitted detailed written submission with

Gopal Lal Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee, i

ITA 1087/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

cash seized of 9,00,000/-) is held as unexplained found from the premises of the assessee during the search proceedings is held as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 1158BE of the IT Act. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT (Appeal) and submitted detailed written submission with

Anand Kushwaha, Bahraich vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Bahraich

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Anand Kushwaha V. The Ito-1 Sorrokala Bahraich Motipur Bahraich Tan/Pan:Canpk9122Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194HSection 282Section 69A

arbitrarily held, that the amount of Rs.1,29,72,532/-withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account, with State Bank of India, is unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, the conclusion drawn by the authorities below is all ITA No.35/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 7 misconceived, non-appreciation

Munjal Mrugesh Jaykrishna, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1793/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

facts in Munjal Mrugesh Jaykrishna Vs. DCIT Asst.Year : 2015-16 - 2– confirming the addition of Rs.95,56,000 made by the Assessing Officer as Unexplained money u/s. 69A of the IT Act. (2) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, as also in law, the learned

Vishal Vasudevbhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 910/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.910/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vishal Vasudevbhai Modi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 128/3, Golwad Ward-1(3)(5) V/S. Ratanpole, Kalupur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabaed – 380 0015 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Anopm 0228 K (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 173Section 69A

State Bank of India (Rs.9,37,400/-), Bank of Baroda (Rs.64,54,590/-), and Dena Bank (Rs.2,44,12,860/-) were treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and taxed at a higher rate under Section 115BBE. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.10

Daxeshkumar Chimanbhai Patel, Dhundakuva Borsad vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(3) Vadodara, Income Tax Office Vadodara

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

ITA 1047/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.53,87,650/- made under 69A by Learned A.O. as unexplained money on basis of credit entries only in the bank accounts. 3 The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the order passed under section ... credited in assessee’s Bank account was not proved by the assessee and hence made total addition of Rs.53,87,651/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and the total income assessed was taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act @ 60%. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment

Bhanuchander Goud Putta, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 84/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

respected CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,58,300/- in the assessment order treating the business turnover as unexplained money U/s. 69A. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have given a finding that the amount ... favour with the A.O, therefore, he held the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.43.58 lakhs (supra) as the assessee’s unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 22/03/2022, determined

The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Limited, Kolkata vs. ADIT, Int. Tax., Kolkata

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2002[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

became illegal tender, hence in your case, deposition of those illegal tenders to any bank other than cooperative bank will be treated as unexplained money." The details of nature and sources of cash deposit explained, in spite of that Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, ignore the submissions before

Kivito Sema, Dimapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Dimapur

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

ITA 214/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh GoenkaFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 127Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessment under section 144 of the Act as under:- Total Income of the assessee as discussed in order Rs. 28,86,905/- Add: Unexplained money u/s 69A Rs. 22,95,000/- Assessed Rs. 51,81,905/- Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before

Spolo Ceramic Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. DCIT, Circle, Morbi

ITA 953/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.953/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Spolo Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Vs. Survey No. 203/P1, Nr. Amardham, Ring Road, Matel Road, At. Dhuva, Dist. Rajkot - 360001 Morbi - 363622 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxcs0845B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld CIT(DR)
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs.2,02,68,000/-u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained money / unsecured loan received by the appellant from different persons. The AO / CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove the creditworthiness

Ridhiraj Builders, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Ncrb, Jaipur

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

ITA 1167/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Sha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT a
Section 115BSection 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

section 115BBE of the Act. The unexplained cash loans are hereby held as taxable as per section 69 of the Act. Alternatively, the unexplained money which was given/used in giving unexplained cash loans is held as taxable u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed

Jaugram Gopalpur Skus Ltd., Bardhaman vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Burdwan

ITA 2169/KOL/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2169/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaugram Gopalpur Skus Limited,..…...……Appellant Jaugram, Bardhaman-713166, West Bengal [Pan:Aabaj0591K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-1(3), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, W.B.

Section 69ASection 80P(2)

Officer also made an addition of Rs.26,04,000/-, which was deposited in ICICI Bank during demonetization period by treating the said amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Sri P Suryanaryanan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 152/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

accept this explanation and passed an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly ITA No.152/Chny/2025

Perumal Pillai Sreenivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3186/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3186/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Perumalpillai Sreenivasan, Income Tax Officer, Block No.20 Flat 3078, Vs. Non Corp Ward -9(1), Jevvan Bheem Collector Nagar, Chennai. Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 101 [Pan: Bbbps-1465-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 26.02.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Ao/Cit(A) Is Erroneous, Is Contrary To Law, Opposed To Principles Of Natural Justice & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Case: 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Incorrect Grounds.

For Appellant: 5. The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to note that the cash deposited into the account
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

assessee and passed an order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 23.03.2024 by making an addition of Rs.62,59,549/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act to the returned income of Rs.10,54,060/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee