← 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

Venkata Ramana Voonna, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.251/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkata Ramana Voonna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Abipv2254N Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

fact. Accordingly, the Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act and made addition of Rs. 10,19,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and taxed the same U/s. 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271AAC

Purama Ramakrishna Rao, Saluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.221/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purama Ramakrishna Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Saluru, Vizianagaram Dist., Ward-2, Andhra Pradesh. Vizianagaram. Pan: Altpp40003E (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 : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 271FSection 3Section 69A

made U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act treating the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 3 271AAC, 272A(1)(d) and U/s. 271F of the Act. Aggrieved by the order ... after issuance of notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act. However, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 21,30,000/- as 6 unexplained money by holding that these are the cash deposits made during the demonetization period and also stated that since the assessee has not filed

Uddaraju Rohini, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Uddaraju Rohini, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(1), Pan: Adqpu2398Q Visakhapatnam. (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 : 05/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 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 69A

considered the cash deposits of Rs. 13,07,500/- made during the course of demonetization period in the FY 2016-17 in SBNs as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same U/s. 69A r.w.s U/s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the assessed income

Ashoka Enterprises, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.135/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ashoka Enterprises, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 27-23-55, Gopala Reddy Road, Income Tax, Governor Peta, Vijayawada, Circle-2(1), Andhra Pradesh-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Aadfa2559 (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AO treated the cash deposits of Rs. 7,99,698/- made in the 3 HDFC Bank account as unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated ... further argued that since the assessee has recorded the money in the books of accounts, the same cannot be treated as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act as observed by the Ld. AO and the Ld. JCIT(A). These facts along with the necessary evidences viz., cash book ledgers

Padma Minnakuri, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 106/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 106/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Padma Minnakuri V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-1(1) Guntur - 522001 D.No.26-20-317 Andhra Pradesh 10Th Line, Sivaram Nagar Guntur 522004, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bdlpm7530E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified in confirming the addition of Rs.42,67,000/- representing the cash deposits made into the Bank account held by the appellant as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in adjudicating the appeal on the technical grounds that there

Indira Voona, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

considering the explanation by the assessee being not satisfactory treated the cash deposits during the demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 17,86,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed an appeal before ... I.T.A. No. 244 & 268/VIZ/2023 Indira Voona 8. The only contention of the assessee is with respect to addition of Rs.17,86,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Ld.Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee made cash withdrawals as stated before revenue authorities

Indira Voona, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

considering the explanation by the assessee being not satisfactory treated the cash deposits during the demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 17,86,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed an appeal before ... I.T.A. No. 244 & 268/VIZ/2023 Indira Voona 8. The only contention of the assessee is with respect to addition of Rs.17,86,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Ld.Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee made cash withdrawals as stated before revenue authorities

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kottayam vs. Sunitha Menon, Kottayam

Appeal is allowed

ITA 114/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

demonetized notes after 8.11.2016 in violation of the notifications issued by RBI. Accordingly, he has taken the view that the above said amounts represents unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked

The Vellur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. The ITO Ward 3, Kannur

ITA 655/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

outset that the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in this instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action making sec.69 unexplained money addition of Rs.3,46,06,000, in the course of assessment dated 30.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 2 ITA No.655/Coch/2023. The Vellur

Killick Nixon Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4016/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : Shri.K.Gopal & Ms Neha Paranjpe.AR Shr
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271Section 41(1)Section 69Section 69A

given proper opportunity. 3. The Learned CIT Appeals has erred in confirming addition Rs. 1,95,10,783/- as Cash deposit as deemed unexplained money u/s 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Learned CIT Appeals has erred in confirming assessing the income

Nitin Kumar Bohra, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.T. Seshadri, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 234ASection 250Section 69

profession. He further submitted that the turnover of the assessee has been accepted partially and treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money is not justified. He further submitted that the assessee has got VAT registration and filed return of income which is accepted by the Govt

Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Vijaypura

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

ITA 1282/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, V., Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

year ended 31.03.2016. 3. Section 68 of the Income Tax is not applicable for this business sale of sugar transaction as there is no unexplained money involved. 4. The assessing officer has not brought any evidence to show that the amounts received from parties were returned back to them

Pradipkumar Arvindbhai Kothari, Botad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(10), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 889/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

Rs.1,11,98,244/- made by A.O. towards the entire credits in the bank accounts during FY relevant to AY 2017-18 as unexplained money u/s 69A is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. NFAC has grievously erred ... Rs.1,11,98,244/- made by A.O. towards the entire credits in the bank accounts during FY relevant to AY 2017-18 as unexplained money u/s 69A. It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs.1,11,98,244/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted

Harde vs. Ingh P. Chudasama Prop. Bhavani Transport, Ahmedabadvs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Hardevsingh P Chudasama, The Principal Prop. Bhavani Transport, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Opp. Jain Temple, Income Tax-3, Dholera, Ahmedabad. Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-382455. Pan: Adgpc0026R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri H Phani Raju, CIT. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 263Section 68Section 69A

After taking cognizance of the same the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.44,07,549/- u/s.69A of the Act being the unexplained money. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT observed that since the assessment was made u/s.144 of the Act, total amount i.e Rs.6 ... credit/cash deposits in two bank accounts of the firm instead of making addition for the entire Asst. Year 2017-18 5 amount treating as unexplained money. The Ld.DR also relied upon the findings of the Ld.PCIT and submitted that the AO should have made protective addition in the case

Md Afscs Limited Poodur, Rangareddy vs. ITO., Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 707/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 707/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Md Afscs Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Poodur Ward 11 (2) Pan:Aaeam2357D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Ambika, S. Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Smt. Ambika, S. CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

making addition towards disallowances of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act, addition towards provisions debited to P&L Account and addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, towards total credit into bank account. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority

Bharat Kumar Chetri, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1388/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

accepting sale of jewellery, own savings of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.1,94,000. However the remaining amount of Rs.10,41,999 was treated as unexplained money. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. The appeal is filed with a delay of 56 days and in this regard

Ramesh Gupta, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(4), Delhi

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

ITA 930/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

including other than cash credits. Finally, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing addition of Rs.84,11,889/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. However, again the assessee did not respond. Since, no explanation was received from the appellant; the Assessing Officer had left ... Rs.84,11,889/- treating all the credits of Rs.84,11,889/- (cash credit of Rs.54,66,500/- + other credits of Rs.29,45,389/-) as unexplained money under the provision of section 69A of the Act. 7.2 In view of the above narrated facts, the A.O. correctly made the above addition

Padam Sarup Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

legal tender on 08.11.2016 evening, therefore, it can safely be inferred that Rs. 2,51,47,000/- are belonging to the unexplained money of the assessee from the undisclosed sources. However, he may be given benefit of the immunity provided by the Government to this trade. 11. Furthermore, the assessee

Madhu, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2771/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2017-18 Madhu Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), C/O Sbg & Co., Ca Gurgaon 9, Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 054 (Pan: Biwpm2823A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 13,14,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money on account of cash deposit in bank is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, ought to be deleted. 4. That on the facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the addition of Rs. 13,14,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money on account of cash deposit in bank is illegal and unjustified because the cash was deposited in bank is out of prior cash withdrawal from bank during

Yogesh Maganlal Chawda, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 147Section 148Section 69

laws of the case the Ld. AO is justified in passing an order dated 15/03/2022 making an addition of Rs.17,80,000/- as unexplained money under Sec 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Yogesh Maganlal Chawda ITA no.304/Nag./2023 3. Whether in facts and laws of the case