← 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

Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Mahesh Balakrishnan, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 706/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69A

also sent to the assessee but the assessee had not availed the said opportunities. Therefore the AO had treated the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO had also added the difference in the interest income received while computing the taxable income of the assessee

Sabu Joseph, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward 4 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 756/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sabu Joseph .......... Appellant Kachanolickal Building, Paduva Akalakunnam, Kottayam 686564 [Pan: Akkpj3906E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 .......... Respondent Public Library Building, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Jijo, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jijo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

authorised to accept SBN during the demonetisation period. In the circumstances, the AO treated these cash deposits made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur vs. Jai Govind Dhamani HUF, Jaipur

22. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned assessment order passed by the AO is sustained, whereas the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside

ITA 1347/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aayush Akar, employee from the office of the A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar,JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

above said amounts in cash in the above said bank accounts. Ultimately, the AO came to the conclusion that it was a case of unexplained money within the ambit of Section 69A of the Act, as it was evident that the assessee had actually received said amount from unexplained/undisclosed sources

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table # 2 is considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the act and year wise amount was tabulated by Id. AO and same is reproduced herein below:- Page ... genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table 2 was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.6 The appellant was having complete details of the parties for whom he acted as the middleman and such

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 119/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table 2 was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.6 The appellant was having complete details of the parties for whom he acted as the middleman and such

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table # 2 is considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of 13 ITA Nos.115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT the act and year wise amount was tabulated ... genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table 2 was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.6 The appellant was having complete details of the parties for whom he acted as the middleman and such

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table # 2 is considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of 13 ITA Nos.115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT the act and year wise amount was tabulated ... Chandra Saini. Computing the total assessable income at Rs.43,10,540/-. In this connection, it is worthwhile to submit here that there was no unexplained money / undisclosed income but the amount was of the loan(s) and advance(s) arranged from his fellow teachers and known persons and relations. Thus

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table # 2 is considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the act and year wise amount was tabulated by Id. AO and same is reproduced herein below:- Page ... genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table 2 was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.6 The appellant was having complete details of the parties for whom he acted as the middleman and such

Ravi Kant Sharma, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (3), Bareilly

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

ITA 62/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

cash deposits, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.24,44,100/- made by the assessee during the period 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section ... upholding the addition of Rs.24,44,100/-made by the ld. Assessing Officer by treating cash deposits and/or other credits in bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. BECAUSE based on the information and material available on record, the Bank of Baroda

Dharamveer, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit

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

ITA 57/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Veerender Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

assessee failed to offer any explanation with regard to the aforesaid cash deposits, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.13,96,450/- as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment ... That the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as in facts in treating the entire cash deposit of Rs.13,96,450/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and in adding back to the total income of the appellant/ assessee. 4. That Assessing Officer

Ram Kishor Soni, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present AO: the ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1282/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ram Kishor Soni, 626, Sector No.3, Chankyapuri, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Blips8712B बनाम/ V/S. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present A.O.: Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. F. Jain, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Respective Orders Of Commissioner Of Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao"] Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, They Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69A

having no response from the assessee, completed the assessment ex- parte under Section 144 read with Section 147, treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A and added Rs. 5,37,70,820/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs.2

Ram Kishor Soni, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present AO: the ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1281/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69A

having no response from the assessee, completed the assessment ex- parte under Section 144 read with Section 147, treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A and added Rs. 5,37,70,820/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs.2

Mr Vishal Subhashgir Giri, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 254/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mr. Vishal Subhashgir Vs Ito, Ward-1(5), Giri, Aurangabad 5, At Nimbayti, Post- Bahulkhede, Tal-Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad-431120 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpg9023P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144Section 234CSection 250Section 69A

learned AO has erred in making addition u/s 69A of Rs. 21,47,300/- by treating cash deposits in bank during the year as unexplained money and the learned CIT A erred in sustaining the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in making addition ... treating cash / bank credits entries other than cash deposits in bank accounts during the year as unexplained money and the learned CIT A erred in disallowing the same. 3. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 681/- towards bank interest and the learned CIT A erred

Sandip Kumar Keshari, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 3(1) Sandip Kumar Keshari Aaykar Bhavan, Rajpara, P.O. Raniganj, Opposite-Ramakrishna School Paschim Bardhman-713347 Vs. P.O. Asansol, West Bengal Asansol-713305, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cqupk2724F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhro Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

case was adjourned to 14.02.2022, which again remained uncompiled with. The ld. AO finally added the sum of ₹2,89,97,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as the source of investment was not explained, which was deposited in the bank account besides making one more addition

Tapas Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(5), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1660/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-50(5),Kolkata Income Tax Office, Tapas Kumar Das Uttarapan Complex, 18,18, Ambika Mukherjee Road, Manicktla Civic Centre, Kolkata-700013, Vs. West Bengal Ultandanga, Kolkata-700054 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bmppd1220D Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhro Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2019, wherein an addition of ₹25,74,500/- was made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act deposited in the bank account of the assessee during demonetization period. 05. In the appellate proceedings also

Duraisamy Suguna, Vellore vs. ACIT, Cirlce-1, Vellore

ITA 3137/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3137/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Duraisamy Suguna, The Asst Commissioner Of 30 Thellur Road, V. Income Tax, Sai Nagar, Circle -1, Vellore – 632 010. Vellore. [Pan: Dsxps-6094-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 69A

raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.81,78,522/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Page 1 of 16 ITA. No: 3137/Chny/2024 2. The appellant submits that the assessing officer has made ... deficit of cash of Rs.81,78,522/- compared to cash deposits made and added the same u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money and brought to tax by passing an order dated 10.12.2019. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before

Perumal Gnanavel, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3053/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Dr.M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

date. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer treating cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained money in terms of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. For that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section ... order ex-parte u/s.144 of the Act dated 30.11.2019 by treating the cash deposits of Rs.11,94,500/- made during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act along with estimation of profit at 10% on the other credits in the bank Page - 3 - of 8 account

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

books, whether the temporary advance was given in cash or through bank was filed. Therefore, the amount of Rs.65,02,600/- was considered as unexplained money of the assessee. 39. The Id. AO in the assessment proceeding noted that vide Exhibit AS-11 six original passbook and Exhibit ... onus is on the appellant As per section 168 dealing with unexplained credit and section 69A dealing with unexplained money, the onus is on the appellant. The appellant has merely made self serving statements. The totality of facts and the law, clearly proves that entire cash deposit and withdrawals