← 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

Manish Kumar, Patna vs. Dc Ac Circle 4, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/PAT/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.247/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Kumar, Patna…………………………………………..………….……Appellant Nav Chetna Path, Anishabad, Beur Path, Chitkohra, Bihar-800002.. [Pan: Avbpk7282L] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None 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 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 04, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order 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’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep These Appeals Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 04.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.30,73,750/- For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason “Large Cash Deposit During Demonetization & Abnormal Increase In Sales With

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

compliance to the notices issued, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of Rs.42,00,000/- made during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A and the added back the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer computed income from business @8% on total

Pappu Kumar, Samastipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga

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

ITA 212/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 144Section 234BSection 250Section 271A

making impugned additions of Rs. 30,34,000/- (alleged unexplained cash deposits) and Rs. 1,25,12,503/- (as unexplained money). These additions were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) leading to the present appeal with the following grounds: “1. For that the learned CIT (A)NFAC Delhi has erred

Ashish Tarunkumar Doshi, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavatamal

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

ITA 585/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Gandhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

cash balance which were duly recorded in the audited books of the respective firms. Therefore, the impugned addition is not amounts to undisclosed or unexplained money and the addition made in the hands of the assessee u/sec.69 of the Act is not justified. He accordingly submitted that the addition made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ramakrishna Nukala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 412/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 69ASection 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION BENCH”, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Kandregula Krishna, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 401/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Kandregula Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle – 2(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan : Aeqpk8590R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

bank account during the demonetization period. The key issue in this case is whether the said cash deposits can be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation ... evidence. Consequently, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 69A of the Act and treated the cash deposits of Rs. 25,00,000/- as unexplained money. The LD.CIT(A), upon appeal, upheld the addition, emphasizing that the assessee failed to produce corroborative documentary evidence during both the assessment and appellate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Ramakrishna Nukala, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 252/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 69ASection 80Section 80I

funds, which were consistent with the income recorded in the books of accounts. 25. Section 69A of the Income Tax Act pertains to unexplained money or valuables not recorded in the books of accounts. However, in the present case, the appellant has duly recorded the cash deposits in the books

Chandrakant Vallabhbhai Koladia, Yug Co-Op, Hsg Society vs. PCIT Central Circle-1 Vadodara, Aayakar Bhavan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

Income Tax Act are applicable and also the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are also applicable as on the amount unexplained money, the taxability is determined u/s. 115BBE. The assessee paid the taxes on the normal rate of taxes and without any proper verification, the Assessing Officer also ... Apex Court in case of D.N. Singh vs. CIT 454 ITR 595 but this will be applicable if the merits of unexplained money (Bitumen) u/s 69A should be taken into account or not and the said decision ultimately held in favour of the assessee, but ultimately it was on merit

Aryavysya Seva Sangham Pattana, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 25/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 25/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aryavysya Seva Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer Pattana Ward 1 Warangal Warangal Pan:Aadaa1704H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Harshita Chouhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17/12/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.20176-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law Apart From Being Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 33,34,200/ As Unexplained Money Under Section 69A Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Harshita Chouhan, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69A

passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 33,34,200/ as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition Page

Patloth Laxmi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1382/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1382/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Patloth Laxmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan :Adjpl4782E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y., Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 03/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi , Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 270 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Underwent A Heart Surgery & She Was Advised Bed Rest Upto The Last Week Of December 2024. The Assessee Submitted A Medical Certificate In Proof & Pleaded That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y., DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69A

explain, as to why addition should not be made towards total cash deposits of Rs.13,85,690/- u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained money and bring to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Since, no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.13

Sachin Ramesh Bhinde, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5762/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 69A

total of deposits in the bank account opened in the name of the appellant but which has been operated by somebody else as unexplained money of the appellant.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income declaring a total income

Jai Narayan Maheshwari, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

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

ITA 209/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jai Narayan Maheshwari, Vs. Ito, 17/126, Pipal Wali Gali, Ward-4(1)(3), Jaiganj, Aligarh, Up Aligarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abupm7189B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

with the replies given by the assessee and ultimately, the Learned AO proceeded to treat the cash deposits made in the bank accounts as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment, which stood confirmed by the Learned NFAC. Aggrieved, the assessee ... decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court supra, we direct the Learned AO to consider only a sum of Rs 11,49,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act to be taxed at maximum marginal rate and not at an enhanced rate of 60%. We would like

Sh Ranjan Kumar Arora, Farrukhabad vs. ACIT Circle 4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

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

ITA 202/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ranjan Kumar Arora, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5/30, Nehru Road, Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad, Up- 2096625 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakpa0524D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court supra, we direct the Learned AO to consider only a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act to be taxed at maximum marginal rate and not at an enhanced rate of 60%. We would like

Natthi Singh, Dehtora vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

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

ITA 196/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Natthi Singh, Vs. Ito, Mohhamadpur, Dehtora, Up Ward (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jfqps8274N Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 292B

hands of the assessee for the year under consideration by treating the cash deposit of Rs 40 lakhs made in the bank account as unexplained money. Before the Learned NFAC, the assessee raised similar objection of Notice being not served and also furnished explanation for the source of cash deposits

Pushpadas Raghavan, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 606/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

therefore the AO had made an assessment u/s. 144 of the Act in which the AO had treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that

Bholaram, Bhopal vs. ITO-4(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 923/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore03 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2012-13 Bholaram Ito -4(1) S/O Jagram Village Bhouri Bhopal बनाम/ Post -Bhouri Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bfrpb8953C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025

Section 144Section 147

made. He submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs. 13,68,000/- treating the deposits made in bank a/c as unexplained money due to non- representation only. He submitted that in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be given to the assessee by restoring the matter

Rekha Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 844/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Artham Rajesh, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

addition of the cash deposit of Rs.70,65,963/-, being cash deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant, during the demonetisation period as unexplained money under section 69A. ITA No.844/Hyd/2024 3 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned

Pbn Construction Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 2249/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 40aSection 68

Income from other source read with Section 68 of the Act Rs. 89,55,000/- v) Unexplained money receipt from M/s Darjeeling Cement Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri Rs. 69,95,500/- vi) Addition of share application money with high premium Rs. 78,00,000/- vii) Interest on penalty

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 Madurai, Madurai vs. Sukumar Sunitha, Egmore Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1550/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1550/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Sukumar Sunitha बनाम/ Central Circle 1, 32B, Halls Road, Egmore, Vs. Madurai Chennai – 600 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Firps-0287-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.90.28 Lacs and another transfer of Rs.15.50 Lacs from Beach Mineral Company in SB-NRO-General Account No.11000100095139. The same were held to be unexplained money and added u/s 69A of the act. Appellate Proceedings 4. During appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) concurred that Ld. AO erred in recasting ... Similarly, the credit of Rs.90.28 Lacs represent loan obtained by the assessee against FDRs. Therefore, both these items could not be held to be unexplained money for the assessee. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 6. The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced

Meixia Huang, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asesssee succeeds

ITA 3884/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2019-20 - A.Y. 2021-22 - A.Y. 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar(SR DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act and added back Rs.3 lakhs for unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE related to the assessee’s personal expenses for his stay in India for 126days. Though the assessee claimed that

Meixia Huang, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asesssee succeeds

ITA 3796/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2019-20 - A.Y. 2021-22 - A.Y. 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar(SR DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act and added back Rs.3 lakhs for unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE related to the assessee’s personal expenses for his stay in India for 126days. Though the assessee claimed that