← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cenral Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Madhu Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2372/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am Dy. Cit, Central Circle-2(2) M/S. Madhu Developers Room No. 806, 8Th Floor, 10, Planet Industrial Premises Old Cgo Annex Building, M. K. Vs. Off. Subhash Road, Vile Parle East, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69A

under the head ‘business income’. However, while completing the assessment, A.O. did not accept assessee’s claim of business income and treated it as ‘unexplained money’ u/s. 69A of the Act and brought it to tax, at the special rate provided u/s. 115BE of the Act. 5. The assessee contested ... submissions of the assessee, learned first appellate authority reversed the action of the A.O. in treating the income of Rs.2,26,00,000/- as ‘unexplained money’ u/s. 69A of the Act. 3 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Madhu Developers 6. Before us, learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied

Bahadar Singh, Sirhind vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Sirhind

In the result, I donot find any merit in sustenance of addition of Rs 15,72,500/- and the same is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 8/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

section 144 wherein the AO brought to tax, an amount of Rs. 15,72,500/- being the cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, which on appeal filed by the assessee has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Against

Ewow Av Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -9(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3830/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ewow Av Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 302, Mahavir Ind. Estate, Income Tax, Off. Mahakali Caves, Circle – 9(2)(2), Andheri East, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aagca8548J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.M. Bhosale, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

NFAC), CIT (Appeals)has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 14,87,170/- which was the highest peak negative balance during the year as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act for negative cash balance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer disregarding the documentary evidences submitted by the appellant

Pinky Vipul Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No-3734/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 3734/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ripple Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, SR-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

point no 1 of grounds of appeals is summarized here: Erroneous Addition of Rs 45,00,000/-on account of unexplained money u/s 69A by Ld. AO: a) Based on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the learned AO failed to appraise the fact ... consideration towards sale of flat and thereby erred in making addition of the same amount as on account of unexplained money u/s 69A. b) Based on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the learned AO failed to appraise the fact that there

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Dikesh Ramesh Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-

ITA 3932/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69A

provisions of sec.69A can be invoked in the facts of the present case. Section 69A of the Act reads as under:- “69A. Unexplained money, etc. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money

Dikesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-

ITA 3839/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69A

provisions of sec.69A can be invoked in the facts of the present case. Section 69A of the Act reads as under:- “69A. Unexplained money, etc. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money

Dikesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-

ITA 3837/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69A

provisions of sec.69A can be invoked in the facts of the present case. Section 69A of the Act reads as under:- “69A. Unexplained money, etc. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money

Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 156/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.156/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Dcdpm0224C Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

bank account, the amount of Rs. 1,19,92,500/- is being added to the to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,23,41,750/- against ... have considered that the AO erred in treating the various deposits into the bank account amounting to Rs. 1,19,92,500/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO initiated the proceedings

Benazir Begaum, Ariyalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2470/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2470/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Benazir Begaum, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 21,Jjubair Indane Gas Suppliers, Income Tax, G.H. Road, Circle 1(1) Ariyalur Trichy Ariyalur Dist. 621 704. [Pan: Apppb 6037G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

After affording the assessee, sufficient opportunity, the AO made the additions of Rs.61,65,260/- being the cash deposited during the demonetization period as Unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s115BBE of the Act and part of the expenses of Rs. 8,64,271/- being not substantiated by the assessee were disallowed ... reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 61,65,260/- made by the AO as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s115BBE of the Act and apart of the expenses of Rs. 8,64,271/- disallowed by the AO and brought

Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1921/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 66,65,000/- as unexplained moneys u/s 69A of the Act despite the fact that this amount is carried forward balance of loan account reflecting as opening balance in the financials ... circumstance of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 66,65,000/- as unexplained moneys u/s 69A of the Act despite the fact that the source remains explained by way of providing the bank statement and confirmation letters

Guntnur Vinay, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1828/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 234ASection 250Section 274Section 69A

learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in holding the sum of Rs.6,54,246/- found credited in the bank account of the appellant as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought ... have held that the learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in holding the amount deposited in the bank account of Rs.4,01,808/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought

Ichettira Mandappa Machaiah, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 1782/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

cash deposit made, and therefore, the entire cash deposit amounting to Rs.12 lakhs was treated as Ichettira Mandappa Machaiah, Kodagu Page 4 of 6 unexplained money of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act and taxed u/s 115BB

Darekoppa Krishnaiahshetty Kesha vs. Hetty, Bangalorevs.Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1738/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing counsel for department

into the bank account were Rs.8,00,000/- and accordingly, balance of Rs.8,18,000/-(16,18,000-8,18,000) were treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of any reply, proof and explanation in response to the show cause notices dated ... that since the assessee had already offered the income from catering business, the gross receipts from the catering cannot be once again treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further, ld. A.R. of the DarekoppaKrishnaiahshettyKeshavshetty, Bangalore Page 11 of 12 assessee vehemently submitted that

S A S Traders, Kolar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1576/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249(4)Section 69A

never filed its return of income. Since there was no plausible explanation from assessee, the AO brought to tax the entire cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority

Faridabanu Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(1) Ahmedabad, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan

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

ITA 936/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.936/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Faridabanu Shaikh The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Humera Packaging Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Plot No.15,Nr. Sardar Palace Hotel Ahmedabad Sarkhej Sanand Highway, Sanand Ahmedabad – 380 055 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqgps 1044 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

Rs.11 lakhs which was deposited during the period of demonetization. Thus, the AO made an addition of Rs.11 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed

Arvind Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) (Old Ward-5(2)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 129Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 68Section 69A

page no.8 of the Assessment Order. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.73,41,500/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and taxed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. The Assessing Officer

Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1) (Previously Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1518/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) A-605, M.B. Tower Ahmedabad. Opp: Cama Hotel Nr. Asopalav Flats Khanpur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Bxops 6918 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Ar : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, AR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

appeal given in Form no.36 that the only grievance of the assessee is against the addition of Rs.16,28,500/- under section 69A as unexplained money and calculating the tax by provoking the provisions of section 115AABE of the Act. These deposits were made by the assessee in the bank ... Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.1628500/- i.e. entire amount of cash deposited in the bank account u/s. 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money and calculated tax as per provision of section 115AABE of the IT Act. In fact the cash deposited by the appellant in the bank

Jigar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 148/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Passing The Impugned Order On Ex Parte Basis. 3. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Is Invalid & Bad In Law. It Be So Held Now. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete, Change Or Modify Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,45,05,261/- made by the learned ITO (Ward 5.3.5 Ahmedabad) as unexplained money u/s. 69A. The Addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) NFAC deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The Learned

Late Ranjeet Mukundrao Hasle (Through Legal Heir Kusum M. Hasle), Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Beed

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

ITA 1559/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant’s claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.19,98,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961 is hereby confirmed.” 4.1 Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition stating that assessee has failed

Vitlapura Kalleshappa Revanasiddappa, Chikmagalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikamagalur

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

ITA 1693/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Sreeraksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 69A

obtained cash credit limit on which interest is charged. Thus, addition of Rs.20 lakhs was made Page 5 of 9 on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The ld. AO further noted that looking at the agricultural produced sold by assessee, assessee should be incurring an expenditure