← 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

Sarangabani Kirubakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1237/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 69

under: - 7. However, before parting with, we may observe that there is a series of five provisions viz., Section 69-Unexplained investments, Section 69A- Unexplained money, etc., Section 69B-Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account 69C-Unexplained expenditure, etc. and 69D- Amount borrowed or repaid

Sarangabani Kirubagaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1236/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.30 Lacs & Assessment Of Short- Term Capital Gain (Stcg) For Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Of Rs.30 Lacs U/S 69 Represent Advance Received Through

For Appellant: Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

under: - 7. However, before parting with, we may observe that there is a series of five provisions viz., Section 69-Unexplained investments, Section 69A- Unexplained money, etc., Section 69B-Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account 69C-Unexplained expenditure, etc. and 69D- Amount borrowed or repaid

Sarangabani Kirubakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1235/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1235/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.6.50 Lacs. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Represents Receipt Of Loan From A Friend Through Banking Channels Which Could Not Be Added U/S 69. This Addition Does Not Satisfy

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

under: - 7. However, before parting with, we may observe that there is a series of five provisions viz., Section 69-Unexplained investments, Section 69A-Unexplained money, etc., Section 69B-Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account 69C-Unexplained expenditure, etc. and 69D-Amount borrowed or repaid

Moreshwar Nagari Sahakari Pathpedhi Limited, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Kalyan

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

ITA 1834/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaramoreshwar Nagari Vs. Acit, Circle 3, Income Tax Office, Sahakari Pathpedhi 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Limited, Gala No.52, Wayle Nagar, Shankarrao Zunzarrao Khadakpada, Vyapari Sankul, Kalyan(W),Thane Behind Atre Natyagruh, Maharashtra-421301. Kalyan (W), Thane, Maharashtra-421301. Pan/Gir No. Aabam2721L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 139Section 144Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.79,62,500lits of unexplained money u/s 69A of the 2 Moreshwar Nagari Sahakari Pathpedhi Limited, Mumbai LT Act, 1961, on account of cash deposits of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during ... addition of Rs.79,62,500/- u/s 69A of the 1. T. Act, 1961, not appreciating that the provisions of section 69A dealing with unexplained money were not attracted to the facts of the matter and therefore the addition was also legally incorrect and bears deletion on that account

Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

information available with the Department brought to the tax the cash deposit of Rs.1,63,04,980/- made by the appellant as unexplained money. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits

Jeetendra Fakirchand Chordiya, Chicnhwad Pune vs. ITO, Akurdi, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 1349/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17 Jeetendra Fakirchand Chordiya Flat No.-2, Madhuban-C, Premlok Park, Chinchwad, Pune-411033 Pan: Aatpc2327H. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Self Representation [‘Ld. Assessee’]For Respondent: Mr Akhilesh Srivastava [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

offer satisfactory explanation about nature & source thereof, the Ld. AO treated the difference of cash withdrawn and cash deposits i.e. ₹15,70,497/- as unexplained money u/s 69A in the hand of assessee and brought the same to. The appeal thereagainst before the Ld. CIT(A) did yield no favourable

Suresh Gowda, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 769/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.769/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Suresh Gowda Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward – 2 Pan:Aiopg1853B Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S K Gupta राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S K GuptaFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR
Section 148

submitted that the Assessing Officer himself has admitted the fact that the impugned bank account from which the Assessing Officer considered cash deposits as unexplained money of the assessee belongs to Sircilla Sizing and Dyeing Development Societies and not in the name of the appellant. The learned Counsel

Mohammad Abdul Samad, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 756/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.756/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabafd Ward – 1 Pan:Ctups8616K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

issued by the Department nor filed any details/evidences, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and treated the unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 for an amount of Rs./46,72,334/-. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC and 272A

Shavva Sudheer Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.403 & 404/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Shavva Sudheer Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Reddy Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Agkpr5747F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

cash was found at the residential premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition towards cash found during the course of search as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the first appellate authority

Ayyavu Rajavel, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Wad-1, Namakkal

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 390/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ayyavu Rajavel Ito Flat No.1204, Oceanic Tower Ward -1 बनाम/ 5/63, Hiranandani Upscale Namakkal. Vs. Vtc Egattur, Po Padur Kancheepuram – 603 103 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahkpr-9058-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

assessed to tax. The Ld. AO termed the explanation to be without any credible evidence. Accordingly, the aforesaid amount was held to be unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that HUF was carrying on money lending business

Pozhaniappan Malliga, Namakkal vs. ITO, Namakkal

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1295/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1295/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Pozhaniappan Malliga Ito बनाम/ 21/20-A, Perumpalipatty Elur Ward -3 Vs. Post Namakkal – 637 018 Namakkal "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqcpm-9517-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 44ASection 69A

assessee failed to file any return of income or adduce any explanations. Finally, Ld. AO assessed the deposits on best judgment basis as unexplained money u/s 69A. 3. During appellate proceedings, the assessee stated that it was dealing in agricultural products and it filed return of income on 28.12.2018 admitting

Smt. Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar, Gadag vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Hubli

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

ITA 1258/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeysmt. Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar, The Asstt. Commissioner Of Gurlakatti, Kanakikopa, Naragund, Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Vs. Gadag-582207 Tps, Navanagar, Hudli Pan –Eixpr1582R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,38,248/- made as unexplained money U/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] ought ... furnished by the assessee with regard to the source of cash deposits were not found to be satisfactory and accordingly treated the same as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 Smt. Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar 4. Aggrieved

Olivia Miranda, Moodbidri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1151/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

that assessee is not able to substantiate the source of cash deposits of SBNs of value of Rs.12,50,000 and hence treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A and taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act in the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved from the above

Selak Ram, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Gautam Budh Nagar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2653/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 151

assessee u/s 144/147 of the Act at Rs. 28,50,000/- by 3 treating cash deposits of Rs. 28,50,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved against it assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed

Rupa Latha Palle, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 740/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.740/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rup Latha Palle Vs. Income Tax Officer Kurnool Ward 10(5) Pan:Bsepp7160F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri R Rajasekhar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri R Rajasekhar, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 69A

source for cash deposits out of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer after considering relevant submission of the assessee made addition towards agricultural income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that the appellant could not furnish relevant bills & vouchers towards expenditure incurred for carrying

The W.B State Co-Op Agri and Rural Development Bank Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-32/ Kolkata., Kolkata

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

ITA 1321/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 The W.B. State Co-Op. Agri & Assistant Commissioner Of Rural Development Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-32, Vs 25D, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aaajt0468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

them, the credits can be treated as unexplained. The Ld. CIT(A) has treated the excess amount deposited during the corresponding period as unexplained money under section 69A. However, this presupposes that the assessee ought to have received the same amount of repayment of loan as in the earlier years ... even the Ld. CIT(A) has been able to demonstrate how the excess amount is to be treated as unexplained cash credit or unexplained money as the same was not out of the books of account but was entered in the books of account and without identifying the specific transactions

Vijay Kumar Chopda, Sendhwa vs. Income Tax Officer, Sendhwa, Income Tax Department

Appeal is allowed

ITA 390/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Vijay Kumar Chopda, Income-Tax Officer, Village Talwada Bujurg, Sendhwa, बनाम/ Barwani Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aorpc9984J Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.09.2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Page 2 of 13 Shri Vijay Kumar Chopda, Barwani ITA No. 390/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 6,00,000 (-) Rs. 3,60,000/-] as unexplained money u/s 69A and made addition to that extent. 2.2 Then, in relation to the 4th source of receipt

Abhishek Khandelwal, Ajmer vs. ITO WD-2(2), Ajmer

ITA 582/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Th. V.C.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

margin can be estimated by applying provisions of section 145(3) of Act, but at stage “SALES AS PER BOOKS” cannot be considered as "UNEXPLAINED MONEY CREDT U/SEC. 69A & THUS PROVISION OF SECTION 115BBE CANNOT BE INVOKED”. No further disallowance can be made when books rejected. ITAT

Shri Bhagwati Farms, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 452/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 68Section 69Section 69A

assessing officer has erred in law as well as facts and circumstances of the case in making an addition of Rs.1325000.00/- on account of unexplained money deposited during the demonetization period by way introduction of capital through partners within the meaning of Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income ... relates to challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming and sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained money deposited during the demonetisation period. Therefore the Bench has decided to dispose off these Grounds through the present common order The Bench has heard the Counsel

Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Palghar vs. ITO, Cir-4, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

notification, in our considered view, the same cannot be the ground for making addition under the Act as unexplained money since in assessee's case the nature and source towards deposits of SBN has been clearly established by the assessee. Considering facts peculiar to this case we see merit