“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

Sunny, Patiala vs. ITO, W-1, Patiala

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 807/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal. The Relevant Assessment Year Is Assessment Year 2017-18. The Corresponding Previous Year Is From 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057220538 (1) Dated 19.10.2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi,CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 69A

giving the opportunities of hearing, the assessment was concluded under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adding Rs.19,07,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee is running a small golgappa stall. Return of income is not on record as not filed

Rathinam Sukumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 2148/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2148/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rathinam Sukumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pvr Street, Gandhi Nagar, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Cmdps1190J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On 2

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on 2 I.T.A. No.2148/Chny/24 account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual, engaged

Shyam Sunder Mittal, Late Shri Shyam Sunder Mittal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1145/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 69C

treating the payment of Rs. 4,45,092 made to Hinduja healthcare limited towards treatment of assessee's cancer disease as unexplained money. which dismissal of appeal and sustaining of additions of Rs. 4,45,092 are most arbitrary, unjust and untenable in fact

Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Patel, Kheda vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1007/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 263Section 69A

reply, the Assessing Officer proposed to treat the cash deposit in the bank account to the tune of Rs. 31,81,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A in the hands of the assessee and under the head income from sources and charged the same at a special rate u/s. 115BBE

Sajid Dastagir Sayyed, Latur vs. Ward 1 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 1181/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 69A

Rs.1,08,70,530/- to the income of the 4 ITA No.1181/PUN/2024, AY 2014-15 assessee u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the source of credit entries appearing in his bank account held with M/s. Renuka Mata

Jomy Jacob, Malappuram vs. The ITO, Ward -3, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 699/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR

Section 69

doing wholesale business of glass. The AO treated the cash deposits Page 2 of 3 S.A. No. 157/Coch/2023 & made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the act and also disallowed the agricultural income. As against the said order, the assessee field an appeal before the Ld.CIT

Sanjay Nimba Pawar, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Malegaon

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

ITA 1972/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1972/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case and as per law, lower authorities have erred in making addition Rs.32,14,498/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, being of cash deposited in the bank account. The major source for cash deposit during the FY 2011-12 is Agriculture Income ... submissions to your honour. The AO had erred in making addition on account of cash deposited of Rs.32,14,498/- in banks treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of IT Act. but fact is that it is income from Agriculture activity. The AO passed order u/s.144 of IT Act since assessee

Abdul Irfan Abdul Ajij Sheikh, Wardha vs. ITO, Ward-2, Wardha

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

ITA 78/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 69A

belong to the Assessee, as was stated before Ld. CIT(A), therefore the addition of bank deposit of Rs. 3,90,550/- as unexplained money u/s 69A in the hands of Assessee is bad in law, illegal and deserves to be deleted in toto.” 2. During the course of hearing

Mrs. Sushila Shravan Sondavale, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 136/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Adiba ChintanwalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 69A

justified by confirming the Order of learned A.O. by treating the cash deposits in the YES bank Escrow account not belonging to Assessee as unexplained money U/s. 69A in the hands of the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... cash deposits of ` 7,05,28,208, as stated in notice dated 31/03/2021, under section 142(1) of the Act, was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer disregarded the submissions of the assessee and added

Ravindra Khandelwal, Akola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Akola, Akola

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

ITA 403/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 36Section 68Section 69A

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.403/Nag./2023 of Rs. 2,47,11,521/- and Rs 50,71,596/ by the learned Assessing Officer as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ... learned Counsel made following submissions in support of the claims so made by the assessee:– “Addition of Rs. 2,97,83,117 as unexplained money under section 69A For the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer ('AO') has made an addition to the tune

DCIT, CC-1(3), Nagpur vs. Radhika Vegetables Oils Pvt. Ltd., Vizianagram

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

ITA 236/NAG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

30/12/2022, determining total assessed income at ` 7,90,81,036, after making addition of ` 3,16,16,703, on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 3 Radhika Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.236/Nag./2023

Latha Dandu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 497/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Latha Dandu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 11(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Anppd5361B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 274Section 69A

dt.28.10.2019. In view of non-compliance from the assessee, the amount credited in assessee’s bank account during the demonetization period was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Thereafter, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Act separately. Thus, Assessing Officer completed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Folium Trading Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1271/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1271/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Folium Trading Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs. Old No.42, 43, 44, Corporate Circle 1(1), New Door No.73, Chennai. Shop No.G8, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aaccf 4425B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060106027 (1) Dated 25.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Barred By Limitation By 28 Days & Revenue Has Filed Affidavit. The Facts Are That The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 25.01.2024 Was Received In The Office Of Pcit On 02.02.2024 & The Due Date Of Filing Of Appeal Before

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned, in which the assessee

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raj Technology, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3947/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

mentioned in the list were found in the contact list of 11 Raj Technology (batch) the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the same as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 4.2. The Ld.CIT(A), however, took the view ... could not have made the addition. (d) The AO has made the addition u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. We noticed that the provisions of section 69A are applicable when the assessee is found to be the owner of any “money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

Raj Technology, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4 (2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 3840/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

some of the names mentioned in the list were found in the contact list of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the same as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 4.2. The Ld.CIT(A), however, took the view ... could not have made the addition. (d) The AO has made the addition u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. We noticed that the provisions of section 69A are applicable when the assessee is found to be the owner of any "money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

Raj Technology, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3836/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Jarajapeta vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 183/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-363-1443, Santhoshimatha Ward-2, Nagar, Jarajapeta, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram District-535217, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Awfpp2521A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

cash deposits of Rs. 31,69,500/- in his bank account during demonetization period, the Ld. AO treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and added to the same to the total income of the assessee and taxed the same U/s. 115BBE ... appellant and they were duly reflected in the books of account of the appellant. So the impugned cash deposits could not be termed as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act by any stretch of imagination or any in any view of the matter. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

Sree Ramakrishna Lodge, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Hospet

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

ITA 1847/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sree Ramakrishna Lodge, Vs. Ito, D/No.97, 7Th Ward, Near Gandhi Chowk, Ward –2, Hospet – 583 201. Hospet. Pan : Aakfs 3218 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balaram R Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Balaram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

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

completed under section 144 of the Act vide Order dated 29.11.2019 bringing to tax the entire cash deposits amounting to Rs.11,78,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) passed ex-parte Order

Joykutty Selistine, Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 721/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.721/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Joykutty Selistine The Ito बनाम/ Puthuvayal House Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Palliserrikal, Sastham Cottah Ahmedabad Kollam Kollam 690 521, Kerala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Altps 3335 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

resulting in the assessment being completed ex- parte under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The AO added Rs.12,19,200/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, accepting part of the assessee’s explanation for the cash deposits but rejecting others due to lack ... Mumbai (in short "AddI.CIT(A)") upholding the addition of Rs.12,19,200/- towards the cash deposit in bank account with ICICI Bank as unexplained money Joykutty Selistine vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 3 u/s 69A of the Act is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai Desai, Mehsana vs. ITO (Ward 1), Mehsana

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

ITA 1271/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1271/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai The Ito बनाम/ Desai Ward-1 V/S. Rabari Vas Mehsana At & Post : Chhathiyarda Ta & Dist. Mehsana Mehsana – 384 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Auzpd 9800 A अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri Ankit S. Rajyaguru, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ankit S. Rajyaguru, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], as unexplained money vide assessment order dated 09.12.2019. Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai Desai vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 Facts of the Case: 2. The assessee is an individual ... appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: 1. GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF Rs.16,35,513/-IN BANK TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A. ISSUE: THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,35,513/- BEING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND TREATED