“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

Jyoti Ahuja, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-44(1), Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4270/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(2)

impugned amount of INR 1,80,00,000 (Rupees One crores and eighty lakhs only) as income on account of receipts by way of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act -1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer ... erred in making addition of INR 1,80,00,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act without providing and confronting all the statement and documents relied upon and without considering submissions of the Appellant wherein all documentary evidences has been submitted showing that no import transactions

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Uday Kumar, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4254/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69A

nothing to substantiate to submit anything in this regard and accordingly, he proceeded to make the entire amount of Rs.59,18,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. - 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and raised several grounds of appeals ... submission of remand report/clarification report in spite of calling for remand report/clarification report several times, the additions made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition

Amit Anand, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), Delhi

ITA 3980/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. & CA Gupreet SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 147Section 44ASection 69A

bank account, the AO added the amount of Rs. 50,90,000/- which was received from Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the entity operated by entry operator are shell entity and a façade

Zeliant Corp, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above

ITA 2201/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 144ASection 153(1)Section 2(31)Section 2(31)(iv)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

case in making/upholding the addition of Rs. 83,50,900/- u/s 69A rws 115BBE allegedly treating the above credits in bank account as unexplained money ignoring the submission of appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both in law and in facts ... Hence, the addition of Rs. 72,82,000/- including 67,25,000/- during the demonetization period was added as ITA No. 2201/Del/2025 Zeliant Corp. unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC were initiated. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

Kavita Gupta, East Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-31, Jhandewalan Extension

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

Section 115BSection 153CSection 69

erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying tax U/s.115BBE(1) of the Act @60% on alleged unexplained money assessed U/s.69 of the Act, which required to be deleted 09. That the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer by ignoring

DCIT, Vikash Bhawan Delhi vs. Rajan Kumar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 130/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhridcit Vs Rajan Kumar Room No. 218-D Block, 31,Vijay Block Laxmi Vikash Bhawan, Nagar Delhi-110092 Delhi- 110 002 Pan: Caapk8381E

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,83,50,000/-. 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case ... addition of Rs. 1,83,50,000/- whereas upholding the addition on account of commission earned @ 2% (Rs.3,67,000/-) which emanates from the unexplained money to the tune of Rs.1,83,50,000/- without considering the facts and enquires made by the AO. 4. That the grounds of appeal

Asha Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2069/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 69A

making addition of INR 76,65,659/- u/s 69A of the Act by holding the same as unexplained money of the assessee company, being the amount of loan to BCC Cement Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entries and total income was assessed at INR 80,79,569/-. 3. Against the said ... erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 76,65,660/- on account of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sachin, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1678/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaysachin, Vs. Acit, Cc-20, House No. 28R, Gali No. 6A, New Delhi Swatantra Nagar, Narela, New Delhi – 110 044 (Pan:Dlrps3290H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Varun Gupta, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

adopted by the assesse. The made the addition of Rs. 26,50,000/- u/s. 153A of the act and treated the sum as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Against the above, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated

Shri Kamta Sahu, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.10/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Kamta Sahu H. No.47, Village: Barauda, Dharsiva, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Dshps7162H

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

able to prove his contentions to the satisfaction of the A.O, the A.O made an addition of Rs.16,90,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the assessee had filed detailed written submissions explaining the cash deposits

Chauli Singhapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Pashchim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle 38, Midnapore

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

ITA 1204/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Chauli Sighapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd.……….……….……Appellant Singapur, Chauli, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur 721212.. [Pan: Aacac0960C] Vs. Acit, Circle-38, Midnapore…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 21, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010–11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Carrying On Business Of Sales Of Fertilisers, Pesticides, Seeds, Providing Loans To Members & Registered Under West Bengal Co-Operative Society Act, 2006. The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Disclosing A Total Income At Rs Nil. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) By Denying Deduction Of Rs.29,43,810/- U/S 80P(2) Of The Act & Also Added Back Cash Deposited Rs.24,86,110/- Out Of Total Cash Deposited Rs.2,10,09,000/- During The Period Of Demonetization From 09-11-2016 To 30-12-2016 As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)

total cash deposited Rs.2,10,09,000/- during the period of demonetization from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed

Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncq-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2683/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2683/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, The Income Tax Officer, 84, Tagore Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Sivanandha Colony, Coimbatore Coimbatore -641 012. Pan: Adcpj 7575Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

unable to explain the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs.50,45,000/-, the AO made addition of Rs.50,45,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee vide order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ... that the AO made addition of Rs.50,45,000/- for the alleged failure of the assessee to explain the cash deposits treating it as unexplained money of the assessee. However, it is the contention of the assessee that AO made additions in utter disregard of the submissions made before

Vazir Singh, Haryana vs. DCIT Cir Bhiwani, Harayana

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5566/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5566/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Vazir Singh, Vs Dcit, Flat No. 305, Swaran Jayanti Cir, Bhiwani, Apartment, Plot No. 97, Sector-54, Haryana-127021 Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arcps2911B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Order Dated 14.07.2025, In Case No. Cit(A), Hisar/10255/2019-20, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

wherein the assessee seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action treating the cash seized of Rs.20,00,000/- at the airport, as representing unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Learned CIT-DR vehemently supports the impugned addition that the assessee has all along failed to plead and prove

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Modasa, Income Tax Office Modasa vs. Bhagabhai Kacharabhai Patel, Bhiloda, Dist Arvalli, Gujarat

ITA 1492/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 148Section 64Section 69ASection 69C

addition of Rs, 2,41,00,000/- made by the AD under section 64 rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards unexplained money, as well as tie addition of Rs. 9,18,150/- towards unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act, without properly appreciating that the assessee ... crore with the co-operative society. Applying the test of human probabilities and relying on judicial precedents, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.2.41 crore as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and after allowing Rs.4,66,800/- as explained from declared income, the Assessing Officer treated the balance amount

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. New Club, Hyderabad

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

ITA 958/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

expenditure supported by documentary evidence were filed. Accordingly, the Ld. AO treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.1,94,38,894/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO further noticed from the TDS statement ... Page 7 of 12 New Club facts and circumstances of the case cash deposited amounting to Rs.1,94,38,894/-(/- is treated as assessee unexplained money from undisclosed sources of income u/s.69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 as the ownership is fixed and sources are unexplained for the assessment year under

Yellayapalem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Nellore vs. ITO, Ward -1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1848/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1826 & 1848/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2015-16) Yellayapalem Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward – 1 Society Ltd, Nellore Nellore Pan:Aaaay2068F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Ramprasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri A.P. Babu, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramprasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri A.P. Babu, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69A

providing credit facilities to its members and that the deposits in bank accounts represent funds of members and business receipts of the society, not unexplained money. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts ... providing credit facilities to its members and that the deposits in bank accounts represent funds of members and business receipts of the society, not unexplained money. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 10. The brief facts

Yellayapalem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Nellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1826/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramprasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri A.P. Babu, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69A

Jithender Reddy Polu, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1493/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1493/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jithender Reddy Polu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward-1, Pan:Ahlpp6612R Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nagaraju, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 05/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

Rs.76,98,151/- made in his bank accounts during the subject year, therefore, the entire amount was added by treating it as his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 11. We find that the assessee after filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on 06/01/2020

Dd 587 A, Vellodu Paccs, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3282/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3282/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr.K. Balasubramanian, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O completed the assessment by making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained money stating that the assessee has not furnished sufficient details explaining the source. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There

Amirtha Distributors, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2808/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 69A

grievance of the assessee is against action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming action of the AO adding cash deposits of ₹5,26,320/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) and levying tax @60% u/s.115BBE of the Act. 4. The brief

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1865/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

suppressed receipts are found to have been converted into assets, or when there is evidence of retention of the entire sale proceeds as unexplained money, that the total turnover could conceivably represent income. 77. Inthe present case, no such undisclosed asset, investment, or cash was found during the course