“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, Ward-2, Ambala Cantt vs. Gurvinder Singh, Ambala

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 607/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 68

evidences available on record. 5.7 It appears from the above stated facts that the AO has treated the said cash deposits made as unexplained money despite the explanation made by the appellant with the supporting evidences which clearly explains the source of the cash deposited in the bank account

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Hemanth Kantamneni, Hyfderabad

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

ITA 1307/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Andhra Bank. Due to non-receipt of ITA No.1307/Hyd/2024 3 any explanation from the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Finally, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s.144

Govind Patel, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 277/MUM/2025[2017 - 18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Roshan Ochani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 151Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

Rs.5,87,50,000/- 6. SECTION 69A R.W.S. 115BBE THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts allegedly making addition on account of unexplained money on cash deposit by old SBN notes under section 69A r.w.s.115BBE amounting to Rs. Rs.9,50,000/- 7. SECTION 69A R. W.S. 115BBE THAT

Patel Kelavani Mandal, Tapovan Shaikshnik Sankul vs. The ITO (Exemption), Ward - 2, Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/RJT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 278/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Patel Kelavani Mandal, Junagadh. Vs. The Ito (E), Ward – 2, Tapovan Shaikshnik Sankul, Aaykar Bhavan, Bilkha Road, Race Course Ring Road, Junagadh - 362001 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtp7542H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

relevant evidence to A.O. at the time of assessment u/s 148 but A.O. not consider our evidence & cash deposited amount are treated as a unexplained money. Your honor in actual all cash are collected from the respective parties as a unsecured loan & donation to provide cash to other educational institute ... running by the trust hence cash is required. Your honor order passed by A.O. not giving the detail reason for treated as unexplained money in his order A.O. is a quasi judicial authority and passing any order he has to give detail reason for not satisfying with the evidence provided

Sri Satyanarayana Fertilizers, Vizainagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 536/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Satyanarayana Fertilizers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram. Ward-1, Pan:Aaifs2692G Vizianagaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

discharged his onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions, the cash deposit of Rs. 1,62,59,500/- was treated as unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also made 3 addition

Usha Rani Chebrolu, Guntur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 532/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.532/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Usha Rani Chebrolu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abmpc8555B Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 56Section 69A

treating the same as income from other sources and (ii) Addition of Rs. 51,93,088/- on account of unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 55,17,677/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Dadi Hema Kumar, Anakapalle vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Anakapalle

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

ITA 373/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.373/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dadi Hema Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Anakapalle Ward-1 [Pan : Arnpd1892K] Anakapalle अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Pc Rao & Ors., Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr

For Appellant: Shri PC Rao & Ors., ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148ASection 69A

section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 06/03/2024, by making addition of Rs.70,86,240/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned ... Learned AR further submitted that the Revenue authorities never called for the books of accounts and erroneously made addition of Rs.61,10,040/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, which cannot be sustained. 5. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, learned

Shri Mukesh Kumar, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

total income of Rs.14,34,850/- after making addition of Rs.11,37,183/- u/s 69A of the Act being unexplained money deposited in the bank. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who gave part relief to the assessee and confirmed the addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Jewel World, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 63/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.63/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Jewel World बनाम/ Income-Tax 5, Balaji Heights V/S. Circle-2(1)(1) Swagat Cross Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 Nr. Lal Bungalows Cg Road, Ahmedabad-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aajfj 5833 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], Dated 06.12.2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Whereby The Cit(A) Deleted The Addition Of Rs.5,61,85,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. Asst.Cit Vs. Jewel World Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 69A

this principle, the AO concluded that the assessee’s explanation was not genuine. The AO found the transactions suspicious and treated the deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Consequently, an addition of Rs.5,61,85,000/- was made, and penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC ... where it was held that when books of accounts are not rejected, and cash deposits align with business operations, they cannot be treated as unexplained money. 4.2. These rulings reaffirmed that cash sales cannot be disbelieved without proper evidence. 4.3. The CIT(A) observed that the AO’s approach effectively

Shanmugam, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3115/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3115/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmugam, Income Tax Officer, 194/2, Samundi Nagar, V. Ward -2(1), Extension Thindal Post, Erode. Erode – 638 012. [Pan: Cflps-9824-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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

addition of Rs.7,08,000/- (Difference between Rs.10,28,500/- - Rs.3,26,500/- which has been drawn on 03.11.2016) u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Before the ld.CIT ... been offered to income tax. Therefore, the AO and that of the ld.CIT(A) have erred in making the addition of cash deposit as unexplained money and prayed for deleting the same. :-5-: ITA. No: 3115/Chny/2024 9. Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities

DCIT-Central Charge-8(3), Mumbai vs. Estate of Late Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta- Executor Shri Dilip Ramniklal Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 4220/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Shah & Shri P P BhandariFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

total income of Estate of late Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) as unexplained money. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus. 2 Estate of Late Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta Shri Ramniklal Mehta ... Rs.200,12,56,838/- less Rs.11,46,72,012/-) made by the assessing officer to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the warrant of authorization was issued in the name of Shri. Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta and Dipti Doshi

DCIT (CC)- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Classic Marble Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2303/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)

respect of addition of Rs.20,13,000/- on account of disallowance of unaccounted cash sales. In this respect, it is alleged that assessee received unexplained money from Shri Kaushal Khadelia. The issue arises out of search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ("the Act") which was carried

Aluminium Industries (Assam) Private Limited, Tinsukia vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tinsukia

ITA 187/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Ward-3, Tinsukia (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO") of Rs.92,88,618/-u/s 69A of the Act on account of Unexplained money being Cash Deposits and normal business credits in Bank account in the matter and therefore the same is illegal and hence the same be deleted. 2) That

Aluminium Industries (Assam) Private Limited, Tinsukia vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Tinsukia

ITA 186/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Ramji Harakhji Fefar (HUF), Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot

ITA 397/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.397/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramji Harakhjifefar(Huf), Vs. The Ito, Ward-1 (1) (3), “Gayatri”, 3- Navjyot Park, Kalawad Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Off 150Feet Ring Road, Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanhr5839R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shriabhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ldsr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20 /12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06 /03/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriAbhimanyu Singh Yadav, LdSR DR

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

income filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 .Rs. 16,900/- Addition on account of credit transactions in bank account treating as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 Rs. 9,83,000/- Assessed Income Rs.9,99,900/- Rounded off Rs.9,99,900/- 4. That ... immovable property is added back to the total income of the assessee u/s: 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money in the bank account of the assessee in absence of substantial supporting evidences.“ (Addition of Rs. 9,83,000/-) 5. That the assessee filed an appeal

Manoj Kumar Yadav, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 439/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

books of account of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act and treating the cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained money, added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. The Ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee ... during the demonetization period, and therefore the same is hereby added in return of income of the assessee and charged to income tax as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE trading undisclosed income under the head of other sources of the previous year relevant

Nutan Chandani, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit

14. As a result, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the appeal filed before Learned CIT(A), NFAC is restored to its original number

ITA 1325/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Challenging Assessment Order Dated 29.05.2023Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee, While Observing That Despite Ample Opportunities Afforded To The Appellant For Furnishing Of Explanation In Respect Of The Grounds Of Appeal, The Appellant Failed To Comply With The Same.

For Appellant: Mrs. Pallavi Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

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

responded to letter dated 04.02.2023. 11. The reason for reopening of the case, as mentioned in the assessment order, is receipt of unexplained money to tune of Rs. 4,16,00,000/-, whereas the appellant had filed return of income declaring total income only to the extent

Rishikesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2431/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 245Section 250Section 250(4)

cases of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 and treated the entire amount as unexplained money and assessed the total income at Rs. 2,16,46,030/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee

M/S M Subba Raju, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M Subba Raju D. No.32-12-16, Flat No.401, Sri Sri Kakatiya Towers, Boyapati Madhavrao Street, Mogalrajpuram, Vijaywada Pan: Aaefm3293R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

that the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and such cash deposits were made during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.9 lacs. The total cash deposits ... F.Y.2016-17 relevant to A.Y.2017-18 was Rs.13,90,000/-, out of which, the A.O disallowed an amount of Rs.9 lacs as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. It was explained by the assessee that as regards the amount of Rs.9 lacs, the same was deposited by the partner of the assessee

Purnima Priyadarshi, Nalanda vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharshrif

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

ITA 435/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

required evidence was not filed, the Ld. AO analysed the submission made and held that a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- was unexplained money which was added u/s 69A of the Act. The rest of the amount of cash deposit of Rs. 33,40,678/- was considered