“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

Biluve Dharme Prasanna, Biluve Kudumallige Post vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Tps Shivmoga, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No 1905/Bang/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1707/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, AR

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

therefore the AO treated the amount deposited during the demonetization period and also amount credited into his bank account as unexplained money and treated the same u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and in form

Chandrashekar Hemanth, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(4) Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

were issued. Thereafter, the assessee had suomoto offered a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs as his Page 3 of 14 unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO stated that the assessee had made a claim of setting off of brought forward losses of Rs. 45,18,838/- which

Rambir Singh, Gurugram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR.DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

addition of Rs.69,28,147/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), treating the aforesaid amount has unexplained money. The decision of the AO was upheld by the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined ... absence of any assistance from the assessee, the AO treating entire cash deposits in the bank account has unexplained money made addition u/s. 69A of the Act. 5. During, First Appellate proceedings again the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the CIT(A), hence

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Deepak Kumar Naryani, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

ITA 171/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarito, Ward 5(1), Jaipur – 302 005 ..... Appellant Vs. Deepak Kumar Naryani, 14 Santosh Sagar Colony, Madhovilas Ke Picche Brahmpuri, Ward No. 54, Jaipur – 302 001. Pan No. Aelpn 6566P …..Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT (Th. V.C), Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

grossly erred in facts and in law in deleting an addition of Rs. 4,85,18,61,105/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A without appreciating the fact of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, without on insert any ground or grounds of appeal ... bank accounts of QSTPL), the beneficiary and/or owner of the money was QSTPL. If the money belonged to the assessee as his unexplained money and was handing it over to QSTPL for some purpose then such a purpose has not been brought on record by AO. Though AO treated

M/S. Prestige Avenues Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-VII, Hyderabad

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

ITA 741/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.741/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2022-23) Shri Bharat Kumar Jain Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Premchand, Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aqvpp1066C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 21.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2022-23 On 30.07.2022 Declaring Income Of Rs.3,86,750/-. The Telangana State Police Seized Cash Of Rs.7,35,000/- From The Assessee After Following

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 250(6)

procedure. The Assessing Officer on consideration of explanation filed in response to the notice issued brought to tax the seized cash as unexplained money of the assessee, accordingly assed the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, an appeal was filed before

Dipti Anuj Pathak, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1680/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1680/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Dipti Anuj Pathak Income Tax Officer A-801, Sanskaar, B/H. Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad Vs. Shalby Hospital, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abepp0722D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

addition of Rs.71,56,500/- made by A.O. towards cash deposits in bank A/c. No.2579 with The Co.Op. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. as unexplained money u/s 69A rws 1158BE is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred ... addition of Rs.71,56,500/- made by A.O. towards cash deposits in bank A/c. No.2579 with The Co.Op. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. as unexplained money u/s 69A rws 115BBE. ITA No. 1680/Ahd/2024 [Dipti Anuj Pathak vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances

Anil Singh Hariprasad Singh Rajput, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 859/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 859/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Anil Singh Hariprasad Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward- Rajput,135-135, Viththal Nagar 3(2)(1), Surat, Room No.416, बनाम Society, Bapasitram Chowk, Dabholi 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Road, Surat-395 004 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Amnpr 5655 F] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 144Section 15BSection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

account of cash deposited during demonetization period and cash deposited excluding demonetization period and other credit entries in bank account treated as alleged unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Anil Singh H. Rajput Tax Act, 1961 and also erred in applying provisions of section 115BBE of the Income

Nandasan Juth Kelavani Mandal, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Exemption, Palanpur

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

ITA 1625/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumari.Ta. No.1625/Ahd/2024 &

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 69Section 80G

aside. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in denying justice, without any justification. As a consequence, addition of Rs.63,26,778/- representing unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act so made by the AO may kindly deleted or denovo restored backed to the filed of JAO for fresh adjudication

Nandasan Juth Kelavani Mandal, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Exemption, Palanpur

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

ITA 1591/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumari.Ta. No.1625/Ahd/2024 &

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 69Section 80G

Shri Balvantray Vithalbhai Parmar, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 748/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Balvantray Income Tax Officer Vithalbhai Parmar Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar Vs. 4700, Kharazapa Ramji Tempte Area, Mahuva, Bhavnagar, Gurarat - 364290 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cxgpp0758K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mohit Balani, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.1,52,16,162/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount. 4. Learned

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 New Delhi, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

case, Ld. Assessing Officer has assessed the income as per the provisions of section 144 by making additions u/s 69A on account of unexplained money, amounting to Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing ... wherein addition of Rs.59,18,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained money u/s 69A on protective basis and further addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- is made by holding the same as short terms capital gains

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4466/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 14ASection 69C

notings of both receipts and payments were considered for peak working. However, wherever, the ledger contains only receipts, the same has been considered as unexplained money u/s 69A and wherever, the ledger contain only payments, the same has been considered as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. In the this ... Income - Substantive - Peak Addition u/s. 2,55,78,795 - 1,37,34,550 - - 5,08,37,100 69A - Unexplained Money Addition u/s. - 1,37,71,102 - 1,76,02,060 - - 5,93,62,500 69C - Unexplained Expenditure Total

Maheshbhai Maganbhai Patel, Virol vs. Income Tax Officer, Wars 1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 726/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,77,850/- made by ld. AO as unexplained money as the appellant is an agriculturist and the cash was deposited from agricultural income. 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before ... bank account but the assessee has not responded the same and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,80,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

Neha Goenka, Vile Parle West, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-34 (3) (2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai

ITA 2461/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ketan Suresh Gandhi Acit, Cc 5(4) 121-B, 7-Dwarka Building Room No. 436 Park Road, Near Shivsena Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Office, Parle East Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai-400 057. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Alepg6106E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhagirath RamawatFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Bhat (Virtually)

Section 44ASection 69A

Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai ("AO") to the extent of Rs. 14,81,056/- holding that the same amounted to unexplained money; 2. The learned CITA failed to appreciate that the amounts were duly offered to tax and therefore, the same could not be regarded

Sangeeta Devi Anchalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Sangeeta Devi Anchalia 2, Gariahat Road (South) 31-C, Jhowtalla Road, Park Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, Cicus, Kolkata-700017, Vs. Kolkata-700068, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpa0199C Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

framed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 06.12.2018 by making addition of ₹14,69,700/- as unexplained money. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply affirming the order of the ld. AO. 04. After hearing the rival contentions

Sandeep Yadav, Narnaul vs. Income Tax Officer, Narnaul

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1266/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sachet Duggal, Vs Dcit, B16/22, Dlf Phase-1, Central Circle-8, Sikanderpur Ghosi (68), New Delhi. Dlf Qe, So. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aotpd0607B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca & Chandrima Chaudhary, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69A

loan was received in cash and that it was not disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, the same has been added as an unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. 3. Another incriminating document was found from the premises of Sh. Gurvinder Singh Duggal situated ... found that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been introduced in cash. Therefore, the amount of Rs.25,000/- was held to be unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was added in the income of Sh. Sachet Duggal

Gurudwara Bal Leela Maini Sangat Trust, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Exemption, Patna

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

ITA 299/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 11Section 115Section 12ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

learned assessing officer has erred in adding a sum of 31,78,100 on account of cash deposits in bank on different dates as unexplained money 2 I.T.A. No. 299/Pat/2024 Gurudwara Bal Leela Maini Sangat Trust under Section 69A read with Section 115 BBE of the Act notwithstanding the fact

Late Shri Anil Jain Through Legal Heir Ratan Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 400/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Shri Anil Jain Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ (Through Legal Heir 2(1), Vs. Shri Ratan Jain), Indore. 11-A, Nemi Nagar, Jain Colony, Indore. Pan: Actpj6439P (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

proceeds has been utilized for making payment of purchases and thus, the cash deposited of Rs. 1,00,86,463/- cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the addition of Rs. 1,00,86,463/- is liable to be deleted ... grounds, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,86,463/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) on account of unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE. 7. Apropos to these grounds, Ld. AR firstly relied upon following detailed submission made by assessee

Govindbhai Atmaram Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1629/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of Section 144(1)(b) and made addition of Rs. 18,01,075/- under Section 69A as unexplained money and addition of Rs. 84,441/- as income from other sources. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before