← 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

Aashirbad Enterprises, Forbesganj vs. Income Tax Officer, Purnea

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

ITA 714/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Patna13 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

deposited in bank account I.T.A. No.: 714/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aashirbad Enterprises. bearing No. 463720170000277 was treated as unexplained money and added u/s 69A of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 13,30,200/- u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved

Alladi Krishna Prasad, Mandalaparru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

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

ITA 172/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.172/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Alladi Krishna Prasad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Aayakar Bhawan D.No. 3-73, Mandalaparru D.No. 2-1-56/1 Nidamarru Mandal Opp. Punjab National Bank West Godavari – 534198 K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bcjpa7058L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144

justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.39,34,800/- by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money u/s.69A of the I.T.Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition ... made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.53,80,393/- by treating the credits in the bank account as unexplained money u/s.69A of the I.T.Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal on the pretext that no evidences

Govind Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1274/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

GOVIND SINGH VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR debtors as unexplained and thereby made addition to the tune of Rs.32,67,500/- as unexplained money within the meaning of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That both the lower authorities have erred in considering /holding genuine

Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Asma Estates & Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.37/Hyd/2021 To 39/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Asma Estates & Income Tax Investments Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaica2191F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 13/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153C

proper banking channel, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards investment u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained money and therefore, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue

New Contai Nursery School, Contai, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(1), Haldia, Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 1420/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1420/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 New Contai Nursery School,…………….……Appellant Hatabari, Contai, Purba Medinipur-721401, West Bengal [Pan:Aabtn8117G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-27(1), Haldia, Income Tax Office, Dubey House, 2Nd Floor, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chalk, Purba Medinipur, Haldia-721602, West Bengal

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 144

basis of information/data available on the records and the assessment was completed under section 144 assessing the total income at Rs.32,95,090/- as unexplained money of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 2 New Contai Nursery School

Lal Ji Verma, Firozabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(2), Income Tax Office, Firozabad

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 313/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.313/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Lal Ji Verma Ito 2(2)(2) बनाम/ 258/1, Jalesar Road, Lohiya Nagar Firozabad Vs. Firozabad – 283 203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afupv-2363-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Amit Verma (Ca) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Verma (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 69A

Lacs in its bank accounts during demonetization period. There were other credits of Rs.2.93 Lacs during remaining period. Both these amounts were added as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee failed to make any representation during assessment proceedings. 3. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that

Gangappa Dundappa Agasar, Belagavi vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 208/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 208/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gangappa Dundappa Agasar At Post: Badali, Tal.: Saundatti, Dist.: Belgaum Pan:Apzpa2849H. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Nfeac/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Manjunath Dodamani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 250Section 253(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

confidence to the learned assessing officer. In consequence, the entire amount of cash deposits were added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. On the other hand, upon a reference about the contravention of provisions of section 269SS r.w.e

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

given any detail for the same in the absence of details and satisfactory explanation, the cash deposits of Rs.68,46,997/- were treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and was added back to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the above order

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1054/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Badaya vs. DCIT addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. If at all revenue intends to tax the said cash as unexplained money. The same can be added u/s 68 of the Act but the investments so reflected in the books of accounts cannot be added. Merely

Arunbhai Chhaganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1936/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

consideration. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,17,00,000/- in respect of variation proposed in respect of income under the head unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made observation that the TDS of amount of Rs.1

Smit Chhaganbhai Ardeshna, Alka Society Akota Vadodara vs. AO, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1534/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 234C

case of Chuharmal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1988) 38 Taxman 190 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that section 69A covers unexplained money, bullion, jewelry, or other valuable articles, and such items are deemed to be income if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding their source

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prashant Prakash Nilawar, Pnue

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5689/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane,CIT-DR and Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 65BSection 69ASection 69CSection 6C

ground is raised by assessee in his appeal vide ground no.3, whereby an addition of Rs.70 lakhs is sustained by ld. CIT(A) towards unexplained money u/s. 69A. Both these additions arise out of one common seized material, thus, we take this for adjudication together. Ld. CIT(A) has given ... given set of facts and circumstances, we delete the addition of Rs.70 lakhs made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Further, we affirm the deletion of Rs.14 lakhs made by ld. CIT(A) in respect of addition made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69C

Prashant Prakash Nilawar, Pune vs. DCIT CC 6(1)-Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5073/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane,CIT-DR and Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 65BSection 69ASection 69CSection 6C

ground is raised by assessee in his appeal vide ground no.3, whereby an addition of Rs.70 lakhs is sustained by ld. CIT(A) towards unexplained money u/s. 69A. Both these additions arise out of one common seized material, thus, we take this for adjudication together. Ld. CIT(A) has given ... given set of facts and circumstances, we delete the addition of Rs.70 lakhs made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Further, we affirm the deletion of Rs.14 lakhs made by ld. CIT(A) in respect of addition made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69C

Shri Girishkumar Jamnadas Bhalodiya, Dhoraji vs. The ITO Ward -2 (2) (6), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 914/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.914/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Girishkumar Jamnadas Bhalodiya Ito, Ward-2(2)(6) बनाम Kishan, Shashtri Nagar Rajkot. Jamanava Road, Dhoraji. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

action of the ld. Assessing Officer, in making the addition of Rs.17,92,000/- u/s.69A of the Act, by treating the cash deposits as unexplained money.” 3.The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee, before us, is an in individual

Karshanbhai Ranabhai Goraniya, Aavadpan vs. Income Tax Officer, Porbandar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly, in above terms

ITA 444/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.444 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Karshanbhai Ranabhai Goraniya Ito, Porbandar C/O. Aavadpan Nileshbhai, Lirbai Vs. Gujarat – 360550 Para Aayarvadi Nava Vistar Ranavav, Gujarat – 360550 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbppg3373K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69

that Ld. CIT(A) was erred in making addition of Rs. 33,22,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are stated in brief. The assessee, before us, in an Individual and filed his return ... Rs.33,22,000/-, therefore the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 33,22,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed

Rahul Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Patna

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

ITA 264/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

appellant. 3) Because, the leamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the fact that there is no specific finding by lower authorities that unexplained money etc. is not recorded in the books of account of assessee. 4) Because, the leamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the fact

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have ... profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have

Arun Kumar Tandon, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 328/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arun Kumar Tandon V. Ito-4(1) Rama Niwas Lucknow New 15, A.P. Sen Road Charbagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acept6448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

deposits in his bank accounts during the demonetization period. After considering the explanations furnished by the assessee, the AO treated Rs.2,23,500/- as unexplained money of the assessee out of the total deposits of Rs.7,23,500/- in old Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period in Bank ... Shri Rupesh Kumar Singh and Shri Gyan Shankar Shukla and also the submissions of the assessee, treated the amount of Rs.24,73,500/- as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 The AO completed the assessment under section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar vs. Mahipalsinh Manharsinh Gohil, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1897/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr DRFor Respondent: Ms Arti Shah, AR
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

addition of Rs.1,04,79,807/- considering all the deposits made in the bank accounts in form of cash as well as credit as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before ... account of Cash deposits and Credit entries, appearing in the Bank of Baroda and Corporation Bank account treating them as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, it is noticed that in response to the submission of the JAO, the appellant vide letter dated 03.06.2024 submitted as under:- “With regards

Rajkumar K. Doshi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2422/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

facts and in law, 1] The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- made on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 2] The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant had failed to prove the sources ... sources of the said cash deposited in the bank account were duly explained, there was no reason to make any addition on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE in the hands of the assessee. 4] The Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Pratap Tea Company