← 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

Jainullabdeen Haja Najumudeen, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1413/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1413/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jainullabdeen Haja Najumudeen, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Anaikattimaidanam, Income Tax, Beema Nagar, Circle 1(1) Trichy 620 001. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69

large cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appellant deposited cash of rs.66,50,000/- during the demonetization period which was treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) while framing assessment u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2019. Being aggrieved assessee challenged the said

Mg Fincap (P) Ltd, Saket, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sfiri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

fulfilled, assessment was initiated u/s 153C of the Act and the same was completed by making an addition of which Rs.57,27,600/- as unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. The same was challenged before the CIT(A) by raising various grounds including that assumption

Anish Rajnikant Shah, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 200/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68

failed to appreciate that cash sales since have already been offered as income by the appellant could not presumptively be rejected and held as unexplained money so as to tax the same under section 68 of the Act, when the section 68 of the Act itself is wholly inapplicable

Kuntaleshwar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. ITO- Ward 5, Ahmednagar

ITA 1022/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Kuntaleshwar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. At-Dhandarphal Budruk, Tal.:Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar-422605. Pan: Aacak1662K. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Akash Parakh [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfas/S/250/2023- 24/1062470203(1) Dt. 12/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Passed Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Ahmednagar [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: Mr Akash Parakh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Bank Note’ [‘SBN’ hereinafter] ₹36,82,853/- deposited into its bank account during the period of demonetisation, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and assessed the total income

Mohammad Lal Pasha, Warangal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 496/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mookambikeyan, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 69

could not file necessary evidence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.9,00,000/- on protective basis in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and taxed @ 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. The assessee carried

Arif Mohammad, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 495/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mookambikeyan, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 69

could not file necessary evidence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.9,00,000/- on protective basis in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and taxed @ 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. The assessee carried

Smruti Rahul Narichania, Mumbai vs. Addl JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 653/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2005-06 Smruti Rahul Narichania Addl. Jcit(A)-1 M-2, 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan , Vs. Palm Spring Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400005. Pan: Adzpn7276P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : None : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R. Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 19 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 07 . 2024

For Appellant: None
Section 156ASection 250Section 69ASection 80L

Mutual Fund. 3. The Ld. AO, however, was not convinced with the above explanation and added a sum of Rs.4,85,450/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessee has not been filing income tax return, however, she filed the return

Amit Suresh Kodoth, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 592/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Amit Suresh Kodoth Ito 41(4)(1) B-1, 101, Kautilya Bhavan, Omkar Chs. Chikuwadi, Mumbai. Near Link Road, Vs. Shimpoli Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai- 400092. Pan: Avypk3682M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, SR. D.R
Section 250Section 69A

extent of Rs.5,99,553/- under section 69A of the Act with regards to cash deposited for payment of Credit card bills as unexplained money, 2. erred in not appreciating the submission made by the assessee that the said cash was sourced by his wife ('fiancee' then) of the assessee

Neeraj Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 1591/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 3Section 69A

remain intact in the absence of its rejection by the AO. The ld. counsel next submitted that there is no case of any unexplained money in the light of the evidences furnished such as complete details of purchases, sales and stocks both quantity-wise as well as amount-wise; details

Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.732/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer 4, Jivraj Park बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(7) Nr. Vejalpur Ahmedabad V/S. Near State Bank Of India Jivraj Park Ahmedabad – 380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupt 1202 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

cash deposits in the said bank accounts. Since these deposits remained unexplained, the AO treated total cash deposits of Rs.63,29,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The AO also added Rs.1,97,306/- declared as agriculture income under the head income from other sources for want

Alan Moses Mozes, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(4)(ii)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 69A

Thus, as held by the Ld. A.O., the explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory and the money deposited interbank deposits are held as unexplained money and are deemed income for the financial year in which the investments in form of money ownership are made, the 'Unexplained investments are deemed ... showing the transfer of corresponding fund. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the DRP erred in confirming and treating such deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the assessing officer

ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Alpa Jaymin Soni, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 812/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69A

cash deposit made during the demonetization. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,60, 86,000/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. ITA No.812/Ahd/2023 & C.O. No. 18/Ahd/2023 ITO vs. Alpa Jaymin Soni Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– 5. In appeal, the assessee submitted

Suhas Hirachand Mehta, Dapoi, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

ITA 1070/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Suhas Hirachand Mehta At Post-Jalgaon, Dapoli, Ratnagiri-410571. Pan: Akspm5272G. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessment to the best of its judgement u/s 144 of the Act by bringing to tax the entire amount of cash deposited as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act vide assessment order dt. 26/03/2022. When matter travelled up in appeal, the Ld. NFAC confirmed the addition and upheld

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

erred in dismissing the appeal and enhancing the income of Rs. 39,48,50,000/- towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the enhancement of income of Rs. 39,48,50,000/- towards unexplained money ... cash credit Page 8 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings u/s 68 and Rs.25.00 lakhs is confirmed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 7. In so far as the A.Y 2015-16 & 2017-18 are concerned, the learned

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

erred in dismissing the appeal and enhancing the income of Rs. 39,48,50,000/- towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the enhancement of income of Rs. 39,48,50,000/- towards unexplained money ... cash credit Page 8 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings u/s 68 and Rs.25.00 lakhs is confirmed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 7. In so far as the A.Y 2015-16 & 2017-18 are concerned, the learned

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 164/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

erred in dismissing the appeal and enhancing the income of Rs. 39,48,50,000/- towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the enhancement of income of Rs. 39,48,50,000/- towards unexplained money ... cash credit Page 8 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings u/s 68 and Rs.25.00 lakhs is confirmed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 7. In so far as the A.Y 2015-16 & 2017-18 are concerned, the learned

Mahankali Jyothi, Dublin, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

that the assessee failed to establish the sources for cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 53,68,000/- and therefore treated the cash deposits as unexplained money and determined the total income in accordance with the provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order

Kaushalya Singha, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

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

ITA 611/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 5Section 69A

Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') in his assessment order considered the non-cash deposits of Rs. 1,70,844/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs. 60,837/- as interest income tax at normal provisions. The ld. AO has passed the assessment order ... deposit of Rs. 26,07,000/- and non-cash deposit of Rs. 1,70,844/-; total amounting to Rs. 27,77,844/- to be unexplained money and the AO has further made an addition of Rs. 60,837/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. The said order had been

Kavitha, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 596/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 596/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kavitha, V. Tax, Flat No. 7, Salmas Trust Castle, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), 4 Puliyur 1St Street Main Road, Chennai. Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Afspr-2701-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjunraj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

passed an order U/s.143(3) of the Act on 16/12/2019 by making an addition of cash deposits made to bank account as unexplained money U/s.68 of Rs.1,96,39,291/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) pleading that impugned additions ... notice dated 06/12/2019. Further, the ld.AR assailed that the lower authorities had erred in arriving the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained money to tax under Section 68 of the Act, without considering the certificate issued by the banker for having deposited SBNs upto 03/12/2016. The Ld.AR

Venkatachalam Dhandapani, Chennai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 1426/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1426/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Venkatchalam Dhandapani, Income Tax Officer, C/O Dr. Rajesh, V. Ward -2(4), Flat No. 17/6A, Shanmuganar Salai, Tiruppur. Flat No.3, First Floor, Gill Nagar (Near Sriram Auto Mechanic Shop), Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094. [Pan: Akhpd-9620-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Aron Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Aron Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

adding cash deposits made to bank by the assessee during the AY 2013-14 of Rs.48,91,500/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was decided