“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

Beekau Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal

ITA 521/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

Vide impugned assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of a sum of Rs. 55,18,678/-, on account of unexplained money, applying provisions of section 69A of the Act. The assessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information available or received on record that the assessee was found

Kusham, Rewari vs. ITO Ward 2, Rewari

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 599/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

deserves to be quashed. 4. That the action of Ld. Assessing Officer erred in treating the investment in agriculture land amounting Rs. 63886720/- as unexplained money in terms of section 69 of the Act is unjust, illogical and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 5. Appellant craves leave

Ashok Vishnu Wagh, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Nashik

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 840/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. Naimish DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.59,92,500/- in the course of section 144 assessment dated 07.12.2018; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. It transpires ... first time before the CIT(A)/NFAC indeed goes to the root of the matter since he seeks to explain the source of impugned unexplained money addition in his hands. 4. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee

Yash Construction Co., Latur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 677/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have

Yash Construction Co., Nanded vs. ACIT, Circle, Nanded

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

ITA 676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

Kubix Realties LLP, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle -14 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1260/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 292BSection 3

Rs.1,30,00,000/-. While doing so, the AO had treated the unsecured loans received from Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain Group of companies as unexplained money of the assessee company holding it as sham transaction. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the very

Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Tenali vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 73/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 7-14-9, Harikrishna Ward-1, Medical Agencies, Battavari Tenali. Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Akzpk3519M (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 : 04/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

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

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

proper explanation with respect to the balance of cash deposits of Rs. 45,68,004/-, the 4 Ld. AO treated it as unexplained money and brought to tax under the provisions of section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and raised a demand of Rs.57,71,647/-. Thus ... before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has offered explanation with regard to the addition made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained money. However, 6 the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ignored all the submissions made before him and facts available on record, and dismissed the appeal

Jami Pradhamika Vyavasayasharakara Parapathi Sangham Ltd., Vizianagaram vs. Income-Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 206/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 206/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Jami Pradhamika Vyavasaya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakara Parapathi Vizianagaram. Sanghamltd., Vizianagaram. Pan: Aabaj1927F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

assessee has nothing to explain regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 1,11,69,421/- in bank accounts and the same was treated as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment and determined the assessed income ... centre, Delhi is not justified in treating the deposits of Rs. 1,11,69,421/- cash deposited in bank account of the assessee as unexplained money U/s. 69A and levying tax thereon U/s. 115BBE. 4. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi is not justified in charging interest

Mubaise Parayil, Iritty vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Kannur

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

ITA 383/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

complete the assessment under section147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits of Rs.1,12,97,550/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

1127/CHD/2019, has stated as under: “The AO has not pointed out any unexplained credit in the books of account, any unexplained investment, any unexplained money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of Section

Mr. Muppuri Damodar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

ITA 1231/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 249Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 44,35,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. Without prejudice to the right

Sri. Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1& Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Atul Alur, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sneha Sahai, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

Accordingly, the total income as Page 3 of 6 per return filed on 04.11.2022 i.e., Rs. 2,86,89,300/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, notice of demand under section 156 of "the Act" was issued and penalty proceedings under section

Kamlesh Mahajan, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 40/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is Filled In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As & By Way Of Second Appeal. Impugned Order Is Of First Appellate Proceedings Under The Act. Brief Factual Matrix The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Is Under Section 143(3) Which Is Dated 23/12/2019 Whereby In Returne Income Of Rs. 7,02,490/- An Addition Of Rs. 22,46,795/- Is Made. The Assessed Income Determined Is Of Rs. 29,49,285/-. The Additions Are Made By Virtue Of Para 12 Of The Assessment Order Which Read As Under: “12. The Assessee Deposited Huge Cash In Bank Accounts During Demonetization Period (9Th November, 2016 To 30Th December, 2016), But The Sources Were Neither Explained Nor Such Money Offered For Taxation, The Onus Is On The Assessee To Prove That The Cash Deposits Made Did Not Bear The Character

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 68

passing the order ex parte and the appeal be considered keeping in view the principles of natural justice. 2. Section 68: Unexplained Money - That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by confirming an addition of Rs.22,46,795/- under Section-68 r.w.s. 115BBE of Income

Raj Kumar, Manali vs. Income Tax Officer, Kullu

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

ITA 20/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056199571(1) Dt. 18/09/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. Factual Matrix 2. The Ld. Ao Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1022831422(1) Dt. 21/12/2019 Has Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 35,38,840/- Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Aforesaid Assessment Order Dt. 2112/2019 Had Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who By “Impugned Order” Has Dismissed The Same Exparte. 4. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The “Impugned Order” Has Preferred Present Second Appeal Before Us & In Form No. 36 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dhgaram Vir, JCIt, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 69A

Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 30,00,300/- on account of cash deposit out of sale proceed as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax, 1961. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) further gravely erred in upholding the addition

M/S. Kuber Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward- 2(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1371/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1371/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S Kuber Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd……………....................…...……………....Appellant 16, Gandhi House, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 8Th Floor, Kolkata-13. [Pan: Aacck6127H] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-2(3), Kolkata.………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanket Joshi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.05.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 142 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Was Not Physically Served Upon The Assessee. The Order Was Sent On Email, However, The Said Email Was Not Noticed By The Assessee, Therefore, The Assessee Did Not Come To The Knowledge Of The Passing Of The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A). The Passing Of The Order Of The Cit(A) Came To The Knowledge Of The Assessee Only On October 2023. Thereafter, The Assessee Regularly Approached His Consultant To File The Appeal, However, The Consultant Was Busy In Return Filing Activity & Did Not File The Appeal. Thereafter, The Assessee

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250

learned CIT-(A) erred in confirming the addition us 68 of Rs. 1,65,30,000 made by the A.O. towards alleged unexplained money received by the assessee company from M/s G D Enterprises without appreciating that the said addition was not warranted on facts

Shri Harsh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 317/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

placed on record.” [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1585 (Delhi - Trib.) Mrs. Pushpa Rai v. Income-tax Officer* Section 69A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Deposits during demonetization) - Assessment year 2017-18 - Assessee individual deposited cash of Rs. 15 lakhs during demonetization period in her bank account - Assessing Officer

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd., Ahamednagar

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

collected the above said amount after 8.11.2016, which is not permitted. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the above said amount represents unexplained money of the assessee and assessed the same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged income tax on the above said deposit ... collections and deposits have been duly recorded in the books of account and hence, there is no reason to treat the same as unexplained money of assessee. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that merely because demonetized notes ceased to be legal tender, it does not mean that the amount collected

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd., Ahamednagar

ITA 2077/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd., Ahamednagar

ITA 2076/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

Shri Renukamata Multi-State Co-Operative Urban Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68