“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

Ishwar Singh Kaushik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 67(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3790/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Mahavir Singh Before Before Shri Mahavir Singh Shri Mahavir Singh, , , , Vice Shri Mahavir Singh Vice & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra Accountantmember Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Senior DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 68

cause notice dated 25th November, 2019 were issued. The assessment was completed ex-parte and added cash deposit of Rs. 16,64,000/- as unexplained money under Section 68 of the Act. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer started penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section

Ajay Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO - 48(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3543/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Ita No:- 3543/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2011-12)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Nayyar, Dr. DR

Section 69A

well as the addition of unexplained cash of Rs. 85,34,373/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. We noted from the order of CIT(A), that it is ex- parte qua assessee, but even on merits, he has not adjudicated the Page

Atul Dave, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1643/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1643/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Atul Dave, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs Dave Travels, Ward-3(1)(1), . Rishi Sidhi Bunglows, Vadodara. Kothi Char Rasta, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Acopd0411E

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

case in confirming the order of the Ld. AO of making addition of 6,50,000/- on the erroneous plea that it is unexplained money U/s 69 of the Act. 5. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in not appreciating ... made addition of Rs.13,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, and addition of Rs.6,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), dismissed the appeal

Vedre Pranathie, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1004/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1004/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vedre Pranathie Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Abzpv3765B] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18/06/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Registry Has Noticed Delay Of 46 Days In The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Explained That Although The Ld.Cit(A) Passed Order On 18.06.2024, The Appellant Has Received The Impugned Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On 03.09.2024 & If We

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

record and made additions of Rs.99,65,478/-, towards credits including cash deposited into bank account held with Kotak Mahindra Bank 3 Ltd. as unexplained money taxable u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee

Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 1813/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1813/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyamal Kumar Ghosh……………………………………………….…..……Appellant 40, Weston Street, 2Nd Floor, Bowbazar, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Adtpg3720F] Vs. Ito, Ward-33(5), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023 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 Ld. Ar Raised Issue Of A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Gross Total Income Of Rs.14,15,352/- & Total Income Of Rs.12,49,520/- After Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response, The Assessee Submitted Profit & Loss A/C, Balance Sheet And

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

Rs.50,000/- + Rs.9,38,500/- + Rs.6,00,000/-) deposited in bank account nos. as per Table No.1 of the assessment order was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the act and added to the total income of the assessee. Additionally, the Assessing Officer found that fresh capital of Rs.5

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge Power Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

same day and the AO on this basis came to the conclusion that this is an accommodation entry. The said amount was treated as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) vide order

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge Power Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

Rengasamy Asaithambi, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT, Circle -2(1), Trichy, Tiruchirappalli

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

ITA 11/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 69A

lakhs in currency of Rs. 100, 50, 20 & 10 etc. Hence the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A and brought to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC who was pleased

Krishan Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 1189/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Nfac, The Order Of Assessment Dated 15.12.2019, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Jaipur [

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

during demonetization period, said amount was added to the income of the 7 Krishan Kumar vs. ITO assessee and charged to income tax as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE treading undisclosed income under the head other sources. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal ... conducted all the enquiries that are deemed to be carried out and concluded that the cash deposited into the bank account was unexplained money of the appellant. It is to be mentioned here that the AO verified all the returns of income filed by the appellant from

Shree Kaleshwar Tours and Travels, Diva Manpada Road vs. Prabhakar Ward3(3), Thane, Wagle Industrial Estate

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

ITA 3550/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

statement, the total deposit was Rs. 29,40,040/- out of which, the old currency cash deposit amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- remained unexplained money u/s. 69A. The remaining amount of credit entries appearing in bank accounts was Rs. 23,50,040/- and the bank statement of the assesse ... findings, I find no reason to decide against the action of AO in making addition made by the AO of Rs. 5,90,000/- unexplained money u/s. 69A. Further, the appellant has not explained the source of deposited of old currency note and the reasonable profit of this receipt

Imran Ibrahim Badshah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

considered the same at Rs.1,25,20,466/- based on the bank entries and taxed the difference of Rs.16,81,802/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The cash deposited in the bank was savings out of the profits earned from the earlier years and household savings

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Subhash Tyagi Prop. M/S Krishana Construction, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1343/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Sh.Sandeep Sapra, Adv

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

accordingly invoked Section 69A of the Act and treated the cash found in the course of search amounting to Rs.54,68,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) took note of the written submissions ... some doubt but inspite of clear evidences explaining the source and time of purchase of these items. the AO has considered the same as unexplained money and hence deemed income u/s 69A of IT Act. 8.5 I have carefully perused the findings of the AO and the submission

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Subhash Tyagi Prop. M/S Krishana Construction, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. Likewise, penalty of Rs. 2,71,350/- being 30% of the addition of Rs. 9,04,500/- towards unexplained money received, was imposed under s. 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ... counts (i) Rs. 63,790 on addition of Rs. 2,12,640/- on unrecorded hotel expenses in cash (ii) Rs. 2,71,350/- on unexplained money additions of Rs. 9,04,500/- & (iii) Rs. 15,60,00,000 on amount admitted towards non-existent liabilities Rs. 52 Crs. named

Shri Subhash Tyagi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Kanak Pramukhlal Sandesara, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Assessee (Adjournment application filed)For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

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

Shri Ramdas Vishnu Markute, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1759/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1759/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ramdas Vishnu Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Pune. Markute, S.No.1242 Murkute Vasti D.P. Road, Baner, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aanpm8750C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Earning Income From Business & Other Sources & Filed His Return Of Income On 31.03.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.37,22,582/-.

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

determined taxable income at Rs.61,32,582/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.37,22,582/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained money of Rs.24,10,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed

Mamta Sumesh Jaggi, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1545/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mamta Sumesh Jaggi, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Gaikwad Colony, Civil Hadko, Ahmednagar. Behind Zopdi Canteen Savedi Road, S.O. Sawedi, Ahmednagar- 414003. Pan : Ahqpj9065K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law & Fact In Making Addition Of Rs.1,62,32,990/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The It Act Without Considering Factual Position.

For Appellant: Shri Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

following grounds of appeal :- “1) The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and fact in making addition of Rs.1,62,32,990/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act without considering factual position. 2 2) The Ld. Assessing Officer has only considered receipts in bank statements ... income at Rs.1,64,55,640/-, as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,22,650/-. The above assessed income includes the unexplained money of Rs.1,62,32,990/- u/s 69A of the IT Act. 3 4. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 68

established the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transaction and, therefore, the A.O. was not justified in treating the said as unexplained money of the appellant under section 68 of I.T. Act. 1961. 6.5 It is now a settled legal proposition of law that, assuming if there

Shree Ramacbandra Breeders, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 1786/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1786/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shree Ramachandra Breeders, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1, Karnaka Arumuga Pillaiyar Koil Circle-1(1), Street, Gugai, Salem. Salem-636006. [Pan: Adafs4845C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : S/Shri S.Sridhar & S.Senthil Kumar, Advocates. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06. 12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064357271(1) Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2017- 18. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 25.04.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 In All Appellant Has Raised 16 Grounds Of Appeal, All Of Which Have Been Found To Be Narrative & Descriptive In Nature. Perusal Thereof However Indicates That The Assessee Is Primary Contesting The Addition Of Rs.28,84,500/- Made By The Ld.Ao & Which Has Been :- 2 -:

For Appellant: S/Shri S.Sridhar & S.Senthil KumarFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 250Section 69A

applying theory of human probability, proceeded to add the impugned amount of Rs.28,84,500/- to the income of the assesse as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. While doing so the Ld. AO relied upon judicial pronouncements including those delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In para

Mahesh Lingappa, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1400/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha .R, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69A

time prescribed by the Government could not be treated as undisclosed income. 6. The Section 69A of the IT Act which deals with unexplained money reads as follows: Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery