← 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

Smt. Anisha Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 218/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

being 8% of total turnover of Rs. 2,93,95,498/- and Rs. 36,25,919/- u/s 69A as unexplained money. 3. Before the First Appellate Authority, the case was ex-parte and the appeal was dismissed in liminie by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. A.R submitted that

Ashok Kumar Mahadev, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw4(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 729/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.729/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mahadev, The Ito, 5/478A, Postal Colony, Ncw-4(2), Perur Chettipalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 010. [Pan: Bnkpm 1907 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Gouthami-
Section 69A

assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹18 lakhs being cash deposits made during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’). Mr. Ashok Kumar Mahadev :: 2 :: 3. The brief facts are that the assessee ... according to the AO as on 08.11.2016 was ₹12 lakhs, the balance amount of ₹18 lakhs (Rs.30 lakhs minus Rs.12 lakhs) was treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Aggrieved

Vasanth & Co, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

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

ITA 351/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2017-2018 Vasanth & Co The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.1308, Anna Nagar, V. Ward 1(2) K P N Colony Extn, Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur 641 601. Pan: Aabfv 6669F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, IRS, JCIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 3Section 69A

order of CIT(A) confirming the action of ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of cash deposits of Rs.70,68,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act being cash deposited in bank during demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs). 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee ... 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

Deepak V, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1324/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69

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

Sqny Fireworks Industries, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Virudhunagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Sqny Fireworks Industries, The Ito, 74, Velayutham Road, Ward-3, Sivakasi – 626 123. Virudhunagar. [Pan: Abffs 5604 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 69A

Income Tax by adding the entire cash/SBNs which was sales of Rs.49,65,799/- u/s.69A of the Act by alleging it to be unexplained money of the assessee. In order to make addition u/s.69A of the Act, he has to first give a finding of fact that such money

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nagapattinam vs. Rajendran Manikandan, Vadakudi, Annavasal

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1130/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1130/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito Shri Rajendran Manikandan बनाम Ward -1, 2/105 West Street, Nagapattinam. Vadakudi, Annavasal, Arangakudi, / Vs. Nagapattinam - 609 302. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Cxxpm-5154-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita ( Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita ( Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 144Section 69A

required to explain the sources thereof. However, the assessee did not furnish the details. Accordingly, entire cash of Rs.133.79 Lacs was added as unexplained money u/s 69A. On other credits, Ld. AO estimated income of 8% and framed the assessment. 4. During first appeal, the assessee submitted that

Mr Jainkumar Manikam Menon, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4457/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 69A

provide a satisfactory explanation, the provisions of section 69A of the Act is clearly applicable and the assessee is therefore owner of the unexplained money of Rs. 25,80,000/- during the previous year. This unexplained money is added to the income of the assessee under section

Jeeta Ram, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1851/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

cash deposit, therefore, the cash deposit / credit entries of Rs.1,06,22,450/- made in the bank accounts of the assessee was treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the income of the assessee was determined u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs.1

Hari Babu, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 60(4), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3677/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3677/Del/2023, A.Y.2017-18) Hari Babu Income Tax Officer, C-4, Aurangzeb Road, Ward 60(4), Central Delhi Vs. Delhi, Delhi: 110001 New Delhi Pan : Anqpb9380F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2024

Section 143(2)Section 69A

were issued. An assessment order came to be passed by treating an amount of Rs. 1,09,45,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act vide assessment order dated 28.12.2019. As against the assessment order dated 28.12.2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi The Ito बनाम/ 903, Anurag Flats Ward-2, International Taxation V/S. Nr.Vidhyanagar School Ahmedabad Usmanpura Ahmedabad – 380 014 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ceepp 9266 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69A

insisted that the assessee prove the source of the source of the remittance. Subsequently, the AO proposed to treat the amount as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and made the corresponding addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. 2.5. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel ... under Section 69A. 6.1. The AO’s decision to invoke Section 69A of the Act is unfounded in this case. Section 69A applies to unexplained money for which no satisfactory explanation is provided. However, the assessee has provided all necessary documentation, including a valid remittance receipt, bank statements

Kaushik Purshottamdas Sakaria, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3)(Previously Ward-5(2)(5)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 475/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 69A

Rs.39,68,500/- during the demonetization period, which were made in the assessee’s bank account. The AO had treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A, as the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence regarding the source of the deposits. Additionally

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Sunil Bajranglal Hurkat, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 508/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has not given the details and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,76,623/- as unexplained money. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee

Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 69/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 69

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

Bharatkumar Kantiji Thakor, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1358/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2010-11 Bharatkumar Kantiji Thakor Ito, Ward-1 113-1, Koteshwar Gam Vs Gandhinagar. Vadvalo Vas Motera Gam Gandhinagar. Pan : Akgpt 9389 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Parin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

appellant to disclose fully and truly material facts. 5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.13.54,783/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 2 6. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2,66,566/- on account

Nileshkumar Govindbhai Bharwad, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(10) Now Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1353/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nileshkumar Govindbhai Ito, Ward-3(2)(10) Bharwad V Now 3(2)(1) 375, Bharwad Vas, S Ahmedabad. Ramol Road, Ramol Ahmedabad 382 0449. Pan : Bigpb 1722 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Pamil H. Shah Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 115Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

dispute. The assessee has deposited total amount of Rs.33,51,051/- in his bank account. The AO has stated this cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 4. The aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal

Maa Sharada Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

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

addition of Rs.1,29,23,200/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained money. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 13.11.2017 declaring total income ... Assessing Officer has directed the assessee to explain the source of such deposits and as to how it should not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income 2 Maa Sharada Enterprise Tax Act. The assessee has submitted requisite details, but ld. Assessing Officer did not discuss

M/S Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2023[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 69

illegal to hold SBNs, only to examine whether source of any deposits made during that period cannot be explained, which would mean that unexplained money held in the form of the SBNs is being brought as accounted money before 31.12.2016. The addition if any can be made only on account ... 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

Tabrez Iqbal Sayed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4844/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhritabrez Iqbal Sayed V/S. Ito, Ward 12(3)(1) बनाम 1002, 10Th Floor, Yusuf Room No. 147A, 1St Floor, Manzil, Dr. Anandrao Nair Aayakar Bhavan, Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400011 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anops1005J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri K. Goapal a/w Shri OmFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

NFAC is not justified in confirming the actions of the Ld. A.O. in treating the cash deposits amounting to Rs.33,50,000/- as unexplained money as per section 69A of the Act without appreciating that the cash deposits were made out of the opening cash balance available with the Appellant

Vasant Hirachand Rathod, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(4), Kolhapur

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1385/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Vasant Hirachand Rathod 461, B-Ward, Bhawani Chambers, Bhawani Mandap, Juna Rajwada, Kolhapur-416002. Pan: Aeupr6755D. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingate [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

failure to offer satisfactory explanation about nature & source of such cash of ₹46,53,000/- deposited during demonetisation, the Ld. AO treated same as unexplained money u/s 69A in the hand of assessee and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act by an order framed ... absence of corroborative evidences in support of cash sales claimed to have been made by the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly famed the assessment. The assessee was indifferent in first appellate proceedings, therefore there was hardly any change

Sh. Bhupendra Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 905/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

source of cash deposits in bank account which is maintained in Bank of Baroda to the extent of Rs.56,99,685/- was treated as unexplained money as per section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the assessee has not explained the nature and source for the cash ... extent of Rs.56,99,685/- the same was treated as unexplained money referred to under section 69A. Accordingly, the cash deposit to the extent of Rs.56,99,685/- was added back under the head 'Income from Other Sources' and brought to tax at special rate as per the provisions