← 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

Tejal Nilesh Sorthi, Near Civil Court, Dahanu Road, P vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Palghar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1365/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh Suaratwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, SR D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 12.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs.13,19,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Ludhiana vs. Bishnu Kumar Goyal, Bathinda

ITA 488/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.00 crore made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money receivable from Shri Bishnu Kumar Goyal (to be read as unexplained money payable to Shri Hemant Jindal) on account of sale of Goodwill as evidenced ... issued to the assessee as to why the amount of Rs. 4.00 Crores paid by the assessee should not be considered as his unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act. 5. In response to the show cause

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Ludhiana vs. Hemant Jindal, New Delhi

ITA 487/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.00 crore made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money receivable from Shri Bishnu Kumar Goyal (to be read as unexplained money payable to Shri Hemant Jindal) on account of sale of Goodwill as evidenced ... issued to the assessee as to why the amount of Rs. 4.00 Crores paid by the assessee should not be considered as his unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act. 5. In response to the show cause

Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Pm Palem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 303/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 303/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(4), Pan: Agxpn5603K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Muralidhar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Muralidhar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

notice dated 10/12/2019 wherein the assessee was asked as to why the impugned cash deposits of Rs. 11,07,142/- cannot be treated as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act in the absence of any explanation towards the sources of the cash deposits ... assessment to the best of his judgment U/s. 144 of the Act treating the impugned cash deposits of Rs. 11,07,142/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271AAC

Kiran Kumar Singh, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(6), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1335/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

passing the assessment order dated 29.01.2019, where the addition of Rs. 82,25,500/- was made as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. I.T.A. No. 1335/Kol/2024 Kiran Kumar Singh 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... products. Therefore, during the period of demonetization, assessee being authorised to collect Specified Bank Notes (SBN). Therefore, such SBN Notes cannot be termed as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 8. We after going through the facts of the case

Sukumar Dhanapal, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1724/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1724/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Dhanapal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 121/47, Singanna Chetty Street, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Atnpd5850F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 59 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition In The Form Of Notarized Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The 2

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 68

perusal of the assessment order, we note that against the draft assessment order proposing to treat the above amount as unexplained money under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the assessee has neither filed return of income nor reply to the notice under section

M/S Mauli Mahila Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Limited, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvnesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

income from other sources. The Ld. AO in the absence of any straight and concrete evidences, treated the amount of Rs.12,47,000/- as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed total income ... observed that the cash deposits made by the assessee society during the demonetization period have been collectively treated as unexplained money by the Ld. AO for the reason that the assessee is not an authorized person to collect the SBN after 08.11.2016. However, the Ld. AO should have treated

Vara Prasad Didla, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 119/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vara Prasad Didla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abmpd8306K Visakhapatnam. (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 : 31/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 12/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 48Section 69A

between the assessee’s claim of sale proceeds received and sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed of Rs. 36,22,000/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and taxed the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. AO also initiated

Ramasamy Parthiban, Karur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karur

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

ITA 1404/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1404/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramasamy Parthiban, The Income Tax Officer, 7/5, I Cross, Vs. Ward-I Chinna Andan Kovil Road, Karur. Karur – 639 001. [Pan: Aldpp 2195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Anandh, Advocate Ghथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 31.01.2024 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 31.03.2022. :- 2 -: 2. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against Confirming The Ex-

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

also made addition of cash deposit of Rs. 20,66,684/- in the bank account u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed both the additions. 3. The Ld. AR before us has submitted that the A.O has not examined the books of account

Sarfraz Alam Tabraiz, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 662/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarfraz Alam Tabraiz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Adupt6123E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate Revenue By: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 69C

Finally on 02.03.2024, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B, making additions of Rs. 93,07,325/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, Rs. 1,40,797/- as income from other sources and Rs. 16,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure

Suresh Thotakura, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 608/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Suresh Thotakura, Ward – 1, Nalgonda. Suryapet. Pan : Aokpt5453L. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs.93,28,096/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. 3) The learned first appellate authority failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant acted as an agent for main dealers

Vip City, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1711/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1711/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vip City, Dcit, 141 Lakshmi Street, V. Central Circle -2(2), Janaki Nagar, Chennai. Valasarvakkam, Chennai – 600 087. [Pan: Aahfv-9469-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 13(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

absolutely there exists no reason warranting any intervention in the findings of the AO in making the addition of Rs.1,38,92,918/- as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act for the AY 2017-18. Accordingly all the grounds raised by the Appellant ... here by treated as dismissed and the addition of Rs.1,38,92,918/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act is hereby sustained.” Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred this appeal before us. 4. The ld.AR of the assessee, stated that the order

Manikandan Subash Chandra Bose, Thirumangalam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Madurai

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

ITA 1452/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Manikandan Subash Chandra V. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Bose, Madurai – 625 002. New No. 70 (Old 131), Big Bazaar Street, Thirumangalam – 625 706 [Pan: Abcpm-6497-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Pratap, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Pratap, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

provision in the Income Tax Act to tax the sale proceeds received in demonetized currencies of SBN deposited in the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A. 7. The learned assessing did not point out any defects in the books of accounts and rejected the books of accounts ... cash during demonetization period in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Account No.153700060750001. The AO completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.55,77,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and taxed as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act by passing an order U/s.143(3) dated 28/12/2019. Aggrieved

Mangat Ram, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2564/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mangat Ram, Vs Ito, Vikas Bhatta Co., Bko Kiwana, Ward -1, Panipat, Haryana-132103. Panipat. Pan-Agipr2718L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Navjot Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2024

Section 147Section 69A

cash deposits are added under section 69A of the Act that will amount to double taxation Once as sales and again as unexplained money which is against the principles of taxation. 11.1 Reliance is placed on the various judgments on the issue and the gist of a few judgments

Sh. Karam Chand, Mansa vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

read with its explanation 1(c) below section 263 because the surrendered income declared during the course of survey has not been treated as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69B of the Act and the tax has not been calculated u/s 115BBE ... course of assessment proceedings. As per the Ld. PCIT, surrendered income should be treated as unexplained income as the assessee was in possession of unexplained money and tax liability thereon should be as per the provisions of Section 69B and the tax should have been calculated under section 115BBE

Dipakbhai Jagdishbhai Patel, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(3), Vadodara (Now Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), Vadodara), Gujarat

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

ITA 1079/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment despite the fact that there was no income which had escaped assessment during the year under consideration Without prejudice to the above: Unexplained Money u/s 69A-Rs. 97,66,506 6 The learned CTT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned ... this case the cash deposits/credits fall under the purview of sec 69A of the Income tax Act The provisions of sec 69A states that- Unexplained money, etc. 694. Where in any financial year the assesse is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

Mr. Rakesh Heeralal Ameta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward. 33(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 3210/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH

Hardik Kantilal Devani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 2426/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawalι.Τ.Α No.2425/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α No.2426/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2012-13 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Hardik Kantilal Devani Vs Incometaxofficer-23(1)(5), Mumbai 2, Shiv Niwas, Sai Baba Road Jawahar Nagar, Khar (East) Mumbai-400 051 Room No.114, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai Pan: Aihpd3812A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Mahendra Paste Respondent By Shrip.D.Chougule (Addl. Cit) Srdr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Were Filed Against The Order Of The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Years 2012-13& 2013-14, Date Of Orders 07.03.2023& 08.03.2023 Respectively. The Impugned Orders Are Emanated From The Orders Of The Learned Income-Tax Officer 23(1)(5), Mumbai Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act, Date Of Orders 04/12/2019. 2

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO by treating the entire receipts in the hands of appellant as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1956 without finding the beneficial flow of fund in the account. 4 That on the facts ... assessee and the Id. AO added back the total transaction amount to Rs.5,34,40,914/- under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money with total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved on the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Id.CIT(A). The Id.CIT(A) passed

Hardik Kantilal Devani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITAs No

ITA 2425/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra PasteFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO by treating the entire receipts in the hands of appellant as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1956 without finding the beneficial flow of fund in the account. 4 That on the facts ... assessee and the ld. AO added back the total transaction amount to Rs.5,34,40,914/- under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money with total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved on the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) passed

Guru Nanak Steel Traders, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 782/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

give plausible explanation about the nature and source of cash deposit and the amount of Rs. 72,84,000/- was brought to tax as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the necessary