← 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

M/S. Gold Palace Jewellers, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2159/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee failed to justify the source of cash deposited amounting to Rs.2,44,46,257/-, the AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in the assessee’s hand. 2.1 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) dated 23.12.2019, the assessee

J B Dairy Farms Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward (4)(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1667/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Subramanya Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

show cause notices issued and accordingly, the entire cash deposit of Rs.1,06,16,000/- were added u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO passed u/s 144 of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Nagpal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Dcit Vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-Ii 697 Katra Neel Chandni Noida. Chowk, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aabcn9620F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govind Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

addition of Rs. 1,46,84,779/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. DCIT vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. The assessee is into the business of wholesale trading of clothes ... Analysis In this case, the AO has questioned the genuineness of sales made by the assessee concern by considering the cash sales to be unexplained money DCIT vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. of the assessee. The AO has treated the whole of cash deposit

Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2)(2), Gb Nagar, Noida

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

ITA 3900/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Acit, C-36, Sector-39, Noida- Circle-5(2), 201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acept6151H Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs 36,43,500/- by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act in respect of cash Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari deposits made by the assessee during ... assessee under section 143(3) of the Act dated 15-12-2019 wherein the cash deposits of Rs 36,43,500/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned CITA

Brindavan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed in favour of the

ITA 367/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us, Judicialmember & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle-14, Vs. Brindavan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 318, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Dlf South Court Mall, Saket, New Delhi-110017. (Pan: Aaacb 0067 D)

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar,CA &For Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessment proceedings, the assessee had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation on the issue regarding addition of Rs.4,01,00,081/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is correct

Vinay Aggarwal, Jind vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Jind

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

ITA 3487/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarvinay Aggarwal Vs. Ito Kothi No.2145, Urban Urban Estate, Jind Estate, Jind, Haryana-02 Haryana-126 102 Pan : Aazpa 7517 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sudhir Sahgal, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 288ASection 69ASection 69C

No.3487/Del/2023 Vinay Aggarwal vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act treating the deposits in the bank accounts as unexplained money. 7. Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that appellant/assessee engaged in the business of resin cloth, Velcro tape since past many years. However, during

Naresh Balyan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Naresh Balyan Vs Acit 125-A, Shyam Park Central Circle-16 Nawada, Uttam Nagar Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi-110059 Delhi Pan-Adqpb8836L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jasmeet Singh, Adv. & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2024 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 292CSection 69ASection 69C

ACIT 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in making the addition under section 69A amounting to Rs. 9,03,100/- on account of unexplained money to the income of the Assessee on the basis of seized documents and presumption without any corroborative evidence. 5. That the Ld. AO failed ... been made on the basis of loose papers premised on presumptions & conjectures without any iota of corroborative evidences. Likewise additions on account of alleged unexplained money quantified at Rs.9,03,100/- has been made without corroborative entries found in the seized documents. It was further contended that

DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Brindavan Enterprises P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed in favour of the

ITA 1183/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us, Judicialmember & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle-14, Vs. Brindavan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 318, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Dlf South Court Mall, Saket, New Delhi-110017. (Pan: Aaacb 0067 D)

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar,CA &For Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessment proceedings, the assessee had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation on the issue regarding addition of Rs.4,01,00,081/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is correct

DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Punihani International, New Delhi

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

ITA 2429/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Punihani International, Central Circle-19, W-143, South Delhi, Greater New Delhi Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K M/S. Punihani International, Vs. Dcit, W-143, South Delhi, Greater Central Circle-19, Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69B

assessee. The Learned AO however disregarded these contentions of the assessee and proceeded to make an addition of Rs 29,56,800/-as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act in the assessment. 18. The Learned CIT(A) observed that the statement given by the assessee at the time

Punihani International, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 1748/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Punihani International, Central Circle-19, W-143, South Delhi, Greater New Delhi Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K M/S. Punihani International, Vs. Dcit, W-143, South Delhi, Greater Central Circle-19, Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69B

assessee. The Learned AO however disregarded these contentions of the assessee and proceeded to make an addition of Rs 29,56,800/-as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act in the assessment. 18. The Learned CIT(A) observed that the statement given by the assessee at the time

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Lucknow vs. Smt. Mohini Agarwal, L/H Late Mukesh Agarwal, Lucknow

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

ITA 170/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 68

Rs.1,68,61,600/- for unexplained Unsecured Loan does not hold any ground. The statement by the AO that this was Assessee's own unexplained money routed through the lender for investing in business for increasing the capital of Assessee." falls flat when we see that out of Rs.1 ... down to Rs.19,65,548/-. As a result, there is a decrease of Rs.59,22,500/- in UL during the year. So routing the unexplained money through UL channel is untenable. 2. As regards credit worthiness of lenders, all the documents related to their financial strength and transactions executed Page

Parwinder Kaur, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

being the cash deposited in the bank account maintained by the assessee holding the same as unexplained money and in absence of any explanation submitted by the assessee explaining the nature and source of the cash deposit. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Arham Gems and Jewellery, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) (Old Ward-1(3)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1087/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1087/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arham Gems & Jewellery The Income Tax Officer C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Ca बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(1) V/S. “Kamal Shanti” [Old Ward-1(3)(1)] Nr.Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 014 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aasfa 7013 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18-12-2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arising From The Order Dated 26/12/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

account of unexplained investment of Rs.20,06,356/-. Further, an addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was also made on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. During the course of assessment, the AO observed that aforesaid additions were made in absence of any submissions/details/supporting documents furnished

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge and Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 863/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

Integrated Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd. income declaring loss of Rs. 64,08,290/-. On the basis of information received that the assessee had received unexplained money amounting to Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. assessment proceedings of the assessee was reopened. A notice

Gouri Singla, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.488/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gouri Singla………….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Paramount Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mangal Pandey Road, Khalpara, Siliguri- 734005. [Pan: Ajbps9966M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Siliguri…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Run A Proprietorship Business & Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2013 For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,67,610/. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As Per Information Received. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Notices, The Assessee Has Not Furnished The Requisite Details To The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Taken Loan Of Rs.22,00,000/- From Various Lenders During The Assessment Year. He Also Noticed That The Assessee Had Also Cash Deposited Of Rs.5,69,000/- In Her Bank Account.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

therefore, made addition of Rs.22,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unaccounted cash credit and also Rs.5,69,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

Sabapathi Ramesh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 2490/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, C.AFor Respondent: Ms T.M.Suganthamala, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 80C

completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act’ in short) and made addition of Rs.14,27,883/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits, although assessee failed ... further appeal before us. 3. The sole grievance of the asssessee before us is confirmation of addition of Rs.14,27,883/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The ld.AR has pleaded for reasonable estimation of income on cash deposits which has opposed by the revenue

Asiatic Enterprises, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 19(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1847/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1847/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Asiatic Enterprises Ito बनाम/ # 6, Jones Road, Saidapet, Non-Corporate Ward-19(3) Vs. Chennai-600 015. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffa-5949-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

case. I. ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE ACT : 1.The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,29,99,000/- as unexplained money under sec.68 of the Act. 2.The CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that the cash deposited in the bank accounts were the amounts realized from sundry ... realization from those trade debtors and is evidenced by the entries in the books of accounts and hence the addition of the amount as unexplained money is untenable in law and facts of the case. 4.The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that the nature of business of assessee

Kandaiah Muthukrishnan, Chennai vs. Dcir, CC-2(4), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1214/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1214/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Kandaiah Muthukrishnan Dcit बनाम/ #161, Rangarajapuram Main Road, Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aftpm-5826-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

improper piece-meal consideration of the total facts of the case. 6. The income from. the unaccounted finance mediation business having been added as unexplained money of the appellant, the order of assessment can by no stretch be stated to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ... appeal before the CIT(A) when cash of Rs.33,48,921/- found during the search of the partnership firm, added as appellant's unexplained money was disputed in appeal before the CIT(A). 8. The CIT(A) having confirmed the addition of unexplained money by rendering a finding that

Efy Thechnologies, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 5(4), Jpr, Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), The Assessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271Section 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

appearing in the PNB Bank Account as tabulated in the body of the Order (as per above 3 EFY Technologies table) is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. The Total Income assessed is taxed

Ketan Chandrakant Motta, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 203/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 69Section 69A

reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.3,89,88,000/-. The Assessing Officer proposed to make addition of Rs.17,40,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the draft Assessment Order, the assessee filed for direction from