← 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

Avuti Bhanuprasad, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 69/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Avuti Bhanuprasad, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Mahabubnagar. Mahabubnagar. Pan : Bqspb5604A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

parte order violates the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of 13,09,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, despite the lack of proper evaluation of the appellant's submissions. 6. The CIT (Appeals) erred ... Since the assessee failed to explain the source of ₹13,09,000 deposited during demonetization, the amount was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and passed assessment order

Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

evidences/details. The ld. AO thereafter taking into account the submissions/ contentions/ evidences filed by the assessee made an addition of ₹50,55,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act dated 28.09.2021, received from two parties i.e. M/s Dhanlaxmi Trading

ITO, Ward - 11(1), Kolkata vs. Sumangal Forex & Travels Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 2211/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2211/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata …………………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sumangal Forex & Travels Pvt. Ltd…………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 9, Baliaghata Road, Kol-700015. [Pan: Aavcs1781J] C.O. No.60/Kol/2024 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2211/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sumangal Forex & Travels Pvt. Ltd ……………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 9, Baliaghata Road, Kol-700015. [Pan: Aavcs1781J] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata................................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Srikumar Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arun Kr. Tiwari, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 11, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.07.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross- Objection Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Engaged In Foreign Currency Exchange Business As Forex Dealer. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,45,236/-. Since, The Assessee Was Non-Responsive Before The Investigation Wing As Well As Before The Assessing Officer, The

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

reassessment order was framed on 24.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.10,46,12,536/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being the difference between the total credits in bank accounts and the disclosed turnover by making an addition ... made addition of Rs.10,46,12,536/- being the difference between the total credits in bank accounts and the disclosed turnover by treating as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as the appellant did not reconcile the difference and did not furnished explanation during the re-assessment proceedings

Ittangur Chandrashekar Sharada, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No-4(3)(3), Bengaluru., Koramangala

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

ITA 2483/BANG/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Anuska K.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahya, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 69A

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 61,42,000/- by making additions under Section 69A as unexplained money. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was delayed by 96 days beyond the prescribed time limit under section

Ittangur Chandrashekar Sharada, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No-4(3)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2482/BANG/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Anuska K.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahya, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 69A

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 61,42,000/- by making additions under Section 69A as unexplained money. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was delayed by 96 days beyond the prescribed time limit under section

Ittangur Chandrashekar Sharada, Sarjapur, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2421/BANG/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Anuska K.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahya, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 69A

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 61,42,000/- by making additions under Section 69A as unexplained money. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was delayed by 96 days beyond the prescribed time limit under section

Yogendra Prasad Sharma, Patna vs. Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.06/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yogendra Prasad Sharma………………………………………..………….……Appellant 0 Matukdhari Niwas, West Boring Canal Road Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-6, Patna……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sagar Warsi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,32,280/-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

part of the assessee, accordingly the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of Rs.11,32,280/- and a sum of Rs.15,87,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same in the hands of the assessee by framing an assessment order

Muhammed Ramsi Malika Kunhithan, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 889/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muhammed Ramsi Malika Kunhihan .......... Appellant Baithul Ummer, Fransics Road, Kallai, Kozhikode 673003 [Pan: Bmqpk8647E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

total income of Rs. 31,49,000/-. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposit of Rs. 31,49,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO stating that

Sameer Moidu, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 1110/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sameer Moidu .......... Appellant Noor Mahal, Feroke, Kozhikode 673631 [Pan: Akkpm0266G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(3), Kozhikode

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

accepted the explanation with regard to the amount of Rs. 7,02,756/- and the balance was brought to tax as unexplained money of the appellant. The appellant offered a explanation in respect of the cash deposit, stating that the appellant received the rental income in cash

Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1742/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1742/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shakeel Abdul Azeez V The Income Tax Officer, Mohammad, S Ward-1(1), Jalgaon. Kachchi Chawl, Indira Nagar, Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Byfpm1596K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay V. Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under

Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 69A

treating the entire cash deposits in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case and submisions on record. 3) The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete ... quashed. 2. The AO erred in treating the entire cash deposits in shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban co operative Credit Society Ltd. as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. Appellant craves the permission to add amend modify alter revise substitute delete

Mr. Prashant Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6518/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh/ Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani,DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

treating the Fixed Deposit of Rs. by treating the Fixed Deposit of Rs. 61,00,000/- as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. It is pleaded that

Mr. Prashant Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6517/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Prashant Pawar V/S. Ito, Ward 41(3)(3), 1801, Jayshree Chsl, Navy Mumbai बनाम Nagar Colony, Malad West, Bkc, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp3644C .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh/ Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani,DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

treating the Fixed Deposit of Rs. by treating the Fixed Deposit of Rs. 61,00,000/- as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. It is pleaded that

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Arvind Shantilal Shah, Andheri West

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

ITA 5903/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit-24(1), Arvind Shantilal Shah, 6Th Floor, 206, Krishna Chs Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Vs. 212/6 Cross Road, Parel, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aapps5253A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR
Section 69A

filed any explanation or documentary evidence in respect of source for the transaction, this amount of Rs.95,15,952/-. was considered as unexplained money u/s.69A and added to the returned income. However, in the first instance, it was for the A.O to provide the necessary details of the alleged transaction

Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

Statutory notices were issued. Assessee furnished required details. Learned assessing officer after considering the submission of assessee, held the sum to be an unexplained money and undertook certain variations to the appellant and passed draft assessment order dated 29.05.2023 proposing the addition in assessee’s income to the extent ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making disallowance u/s 69A on account of unexplained Money the sum of Rs. 7,35,000/- 2. The Ld. A.O initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s271AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the said

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Thane. vs. Akshaya Ashok Ghole, Thane

ITA 3915/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Hindocha

these deposits, addition of Rs. 59,29,000/- was made u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE E of IT Act, as unexplained money. of IT Act, as unexplained money. c) The second additi The second addition made by Ld. AO is with respect to the on made by Ld. AO is with

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3405/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

Statutory notices were issued. Assessee furnished required details. Learned assessing officer after considering the submission of assessee, held the sum to be an unexplained money and undertook certain variations to the appellant and passed draft assessment order dated 29.05.2023 proposing the addition in assessee’s income to the extent ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making disallowance u/s 69A on account of unexplained Money the sum of Rs. 7,35,000/- 2. The Ld. A.O initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s271AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the said

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Aligarh vs. ITO., Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

well as on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 5 Lacs as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act ignoring the evidence submitted by the Appellant that the money has been received back from M/s Shyam Construction through Banking Channel which ... Rs.20,00,000/- has been wrongly entered and accordingly reverse entry was passed. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,00,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period in the bank account maintained with

Ranjay Kumar Diwakar, Nawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.227/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjay Kumar Diwakar.………………………………………..………….……Appellant M/S Nidhi Pharma, Purani Jail Road, Nawada, Bihar-805110. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif.……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 12.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued For Calling The Assessee To Submit True & Correct Return Of Income In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18 And

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

cash deposits credited in the accounts i.e. State Bank of India and Post Office by the assessee amounting to Rs.2,15,03,053/- as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee by making an assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. 4. Dissatisfied with

Subhash Kumar, Anand Jewellers, Gwalior vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Gwalior

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

ITA 242/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Subhash Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Anand Jewellers, Topi Bazar, Ward-2(1), Sarafa Road, Lashkar, Gwalior (Mp) Gwalior (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aucpk4620L Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargis, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargis, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)Section 69A

Assessing Officer has erred in making Addition of Rs. 18,24,500/- in respect of cash deposit in bank considering it as alleged unexplained money invoking provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in following bank accounts: Name, address of the bank and Date of cash Amount ... matter, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making Addition of Rs. 13,60,000/- in respect of other deposit considering it as alleged unexplained money invoking provision of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Name, address of the bank and account number Amount

Shri Kishor Vasant Chougule, Belagavi vs. The Income Tax Officr, Ward - 1, Nippani

ITA 90/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 090/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kishor Vasant Chougule Prop. Om-Ganesh Cloth & Utensils Centre, Chougule Building, 261, Bazar Lane, Benadi, Belgavi. Pan:Aurpc144Q . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(1)Section 69A

with two additions viz; (a) ₹5,04,919/- as profit estimated @8% of business turnover and (b) ₹5,88,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act out of SBN deposits made. 3.3 Aggrieved only by the addition made u/s 69A the assessee preferred an appeal before