“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Abbas Ismail Contractor, Mumbai

ITA 4289/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit, Circle-22(1) Abbas Ismail Contractor Room No. 322 B-2, Mamta Apartment Piramal Chamber Vs. Appasaheb Marathe Parel, Mumbai-12. Marg, Prabhadevi So Mumbai-400 025. Pan : Adjpc0925A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ram Krishn KediaFor Respondent: Shri Satish Kumar

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

made the addition under section 69A of the Act and this section is not applicable in the aforesaid circumstances because there is no unexplained money, even if the statements of Nilesh Bharani are correct. The money is explained, even as per Revenue because it was mentioned that appellant took loans

Dineshbhai Mohanbhai Dangariya, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar

ITA 236/RJT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147

ITA NO. 236/RJT/2024 DINESHBHAI MOHANBHAI DANGARIYA. JAMNAGAR - 361004 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Ranjeet Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 5 (5), Patna

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

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

apart from the cash deposited during the period of demonetization. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 30,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 30,50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee ... found to be satisfactory. That before adverting further, the relevant extract of the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Section 69A, which reads as under:- "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

Dipak Kumar Majumder, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 484/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 484/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dipak Kumar Majumder,……………...…...……Appellant 6/22, Uday Shankar Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal [Pan:Aeppm8159M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-1(4), Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 8, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 69A

account of cash deposited in bank during the demonetization period 2 Dipak Kumar Majumdar treating the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the LT. Act. (4) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee

ITO Ward-7(1), Kolkata vs. Logic Infotech Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1379/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1379/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Appellant Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Logic Infotech Limited,……………………....…Respondent 21/7, Sahapur Colony, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053 [Pan:Aaacl9585G] Appearances By: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Miraz D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Assessing Officer has not considered the Bank statement filed by the assessee. Therefore, the amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was treated as unexplained money of the assessee and brought to tax under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal ... raised the following issues:- “1. For that, ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.22,00,000/- in the form of unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 despite the fact that assessee- company did not satisfactorily establish the identity and creditworthiness of M/s. Pushpanjali Hirise

Aeon Learning Private Limited, Indiranagar vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Bmtc Building, Koramangala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115ISection 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 263Section 69A

circumstances of the Appellant's case. 3. The learned authorities below are not justified in making addition of INR 11,97,14,040/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being the alleged excess credit in the share premium account under the facts and in the circumstances

Ladulal Harakcand Kanther, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 572/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. RakholiyaFor Respondent: 12.03.2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

during the assessment proceedings and determined the total income at Rs. 81,28,815/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act, being unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order. 2 Ladulal Harakcand Kanther

Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Veeranna M Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the facts of the case and had confirmed the additions of Rs. 76,63,259/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs. 1,12,19,527/- as aggregate of income referred to in sections ... deposits despite allowing ample opportunities and accordingly treated the entire cash deposits Rs.76,63,259/- in Syndicate Bank during the FY 2017-18 as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act from undisclosed sources and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO passed the assessment order dated

Rameshbhai De vs. Ibhai Patel, Suratvs.ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1296/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1296/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Rameshbhai Devsibhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Goveredhan Impex, 14, 3(3)(4), Surat, [Jurisdictional Vs. Diamond Estate, C/O. Assessing Officer Ito,Ward- Shreenathji Engineering, Opp. 3(3)(1), Surat] Room # 419, 4Th Baroda Prestige, Varachha Floor, Majura Gate, Opp. New Road, Surat-395 006 Civilhospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adwpp 2692 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 115BSection 144Section 249Section 250Section 69A

Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of AO in adding the amount of Rs.11,15,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

Lakshmi Narayana Chenna, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.530/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lakshmi Narayana Chenna Vs. Income Tax Officer Machilipatnam Ward-1 [Pan : Dbaps5532K] Machilipatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.Siva Rama Kumar, Ar (Through Hybrid Hearing) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 13/03/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Running Business Under The Name & Style Of Vara Sidhi Vinayaka Enterprises, Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Mobile Phones & Accessories. The Assessee Has Not Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18. Basing On The Information

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Rama Kumar, ARFor Respondent: : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessee and made addition of Rs.3,64,500/- towards cash deposited into bank account during the demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and reiterated his arguments taken before

Wakeel Ahamad, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 696/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 248Section 249(2)Section 69A

Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.22,62,000/- deposited in cash in the assessee’s bank account as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer also took notice of interest amounting to Rs.6,643/- in the assessee’s Saving Bank Account and brought the same to tax. 2.1 The assessee ... mentioned case was completely by the Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Bareilly u/s 147/144(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The unexplained money under section 69A amounting to Rs 2262000/has been added by the Learned Assessing officer treating said money as deemed income of the assessee

Jamilhusen Abdullatif Vijapura, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar

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

ITA 100/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.100/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jamilhusen Abdullatif The Ito बनाम/ Vijapura S.K. Ward-3 V/S. At Lalpur, Po Savgadh, Himatnagar – 383 001 Himatnagar – 383 001 (Gujarat) Sabarkantha (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahepv 6442 J (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

based on information that the assessee had deposited Rs.12,26,000/- in cash in his HDFC Bank account, which was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. During the assessment, it was further noticed that the assessee had other credit entries amounting to Rs.94,32,125/-, leading ... assessing authority in making an addition of Rs.10658125/- (Rs. 1226000/- cash deposited, Rs.9435125/- credit entry) u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act as alleged unexplained money in the bank account. 3. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellate

Chirag Jayantibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 68

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 taxniann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.), where the assessee submitted detailed cash summary

Parth Bus Services Private Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 1925/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi V. Pandya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40A(3)Section 69A

under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) made multiple additions and disallowances, including: • Addition of Rs.35,58,300/- under Section 69A of the Act for unexplained money and cash deposits. • Disallowance of Rs.30,66,985/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act for cash payments exceeding the permissible limit. • Disallowance ... assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: 1. Addition of Rs.35.58.300/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained money and cash deposits. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) by confirming the order passed

Swarnalatha Police, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyt & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR

Section 144Section 69A

short “the Act”) dated 29/11/2019 was passed, by making an addition of cash deposits of Rs.12,91,000/- made during demonetization period, as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, against which, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made

Kothari Bipin Milan, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1387/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1387/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Kothari Bipin Milan Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Ahbpk8344D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Ghanshyamlal Upadhyay राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Mrs. Vishnu Priya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A Ghanshyamlal UpadhyayFor Respondent: : Mrs. Vishnu Priya, DR

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 69A

case and in law, the Authorities below erred in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE. By treating Rs 18,65,000 as unexplained money under section 69A and taxing the same at special rates instead of rate applicable to the profit element embedded in the business income clearly mentioned

Nalla Devender Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1190/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyt & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sreekar Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 69A

learned Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 09/09/2021, by making addition of cash deposit of Rs.23,12,926/- made during the demonetization period as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Later the learned Assessing Officer found some defects in the assessment order passed and accordingly passed Rectification order

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-2, Madurai, Meenambalpuram Madurai vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Madurai

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

ITA 1651/CHNY/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1651/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Income Tax, Circle -2, 79, Sanjeevi Street, Meenakshi Nagar, Madurai. Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012. [Pan:Adppj7550C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised Ground No. 1 To 2.3, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

financials of the Appellant and considered the business income reported, there can be no case to treat the Turn-Over (Cash Deposit) as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act. In view of this, the undersigned is of the considered view that the action

Naresh Ramesh Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle, Palghar

ITA 295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainnaresh Ramesh Deshmukh Vs. Acit, Cirle, Palghar Pilena Nagar, Petro Pump 1St Floor, Income Tax Road, Behind Ayyapa Office Bidco Road – 401 Temple, Palghar – 401 404. 404. Pan/Gir No. Ajppd4366E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 69A

raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Addition of cash deposits of Rs. 25,29,500 in bank during the demonetization period as unexplained money under section 69A 2 Naresh Ramesh Deshmukh, Mumbai On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... confirming the addition of Rs. 25,29,500 as unexplained money under section 69A in respect of the aggregate cash deposited in bank in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during the demonetisation period without appreciating that this money did not belong to the Appellant but belonged to the Appellant's clients

Madhavan Sundaran Pillai, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Kollam

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

ITA 739/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 148Section 69A

declared any capital gains by filing the return of income and therefore the AO had treated the amounts transferred into his bank account as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Page 3 of 4 4. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT