← 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

Raj Sarathy Jagdish, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane

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

ITA 3850/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalraj Sarathy Jagdish C/001, Ignis Building Lodha Splendora, Ghodbunder Road, Thane 400 607 Pan: Agppj8217K ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 3(2)/Nfac Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate Thane- 400 604 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 69ASection 69C

learned Faceless assessing officer erred in adding Rs. 14,83,500/- in respect of Cash Deposited in Bank Account by the Appellant as Unexplained money u/s. 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. a. Even though no money was found by the Faceless assessing Officer for invoking sec.69A

Hajaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT 36, Mumbai

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

ITA 2667/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Hajaram Purohit Dcit-36 Shop No. 8, Building No. 33, Mumbai Ganesh Bhuvan, 3Rd Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400 004

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in treating Deposit of Rs.2,40,72,871/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. The appeal is time barred by 83 days and the assessee has filed an Affidavit

Ved Prakash Rajeev Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 1288/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Even The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Several

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in presuming the cash deposits to be unexplained money despite accepting the audited financials of the assessee. 6. That the assessee company seeks leave to add, alter, modify or delete any ground of appeal during

Vivek Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below have erred in confirming the addition on account of unexplained money (jewellery) under section 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.11,83,600/- The action of the authorities below is wrong, illegal, misconceived and unjustified therefore ... less than 5%. In the instant case, since the difference in valuation is less than 5%, we hold that no addition is called for. Unexplained Money: 8. The Assessee in Part B of ITR filed for A.Y 2019-20 has declared jewellery and bullion amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-. Assessee

Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Solapur

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

ITA 897/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.897/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Bhalu Kumkum, Plot Solapur. No.1228, A/P Kem, Karmala, Solapur- 413223. Pan : Ahzpg6709J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Cash Deposits Without Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Cash Deposits Have Been Duly Recorded In The Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

determining income of Rs.35,35,600/- of which 3 Rs.23,00,000/- was added u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money deposited in bank account during demonetization period. 4. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal, LD CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 29-02-2024 decided

Venkataiah Deshagani, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda

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

ITA 588/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.588/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkataiah Deshagani Vs. Income Tax Officer Nalgonda Nalgonda Pan:Ciepd6337D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. P. Sunitha, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. P. Sunitha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

substantiate its claim, the entire SBNs deposited in bank accounts to the tune of Rs.36,39,500/- during the demonetization period was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, the assessment was completed and the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.49 ... claim and the entire SBNs deposited in bank accounts to the tune of Rs.36,39,500/- during the demonetization period should be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed and the order of the learned

M/S. Mobile Corner, Hubli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 662/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 115BSection 69A

fact and circumstances of the case and under the provisions of the law, the Assessing Officer erred in treating the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as all the deposits in the bank account cannot and shall not be the income ... provisions of the law, the Assessing Officer erred in taxing the cash deposits in the bank account of the firm u/s 69A as unexplained money, as the said cash deposits were not real income of the firm but transactions of proprietary concern made with the intention to keep

Karan Arora, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

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

ITA 1652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. C. Rai, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 69A

grossly erred in confirming the order of Ld. Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.64,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 2 Karan Arora 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

Sher Singh, Palampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Palampur

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

ITA 664/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 272A(1)(d)

period remained unexplained. Therefore, Rs.44,70,0007- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of income tax act, 1961 as unexplained money and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE i.e taxed @ 60%. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) is also initiated for addition of Rs.44 ... Therefore proposed addition of Rs. 44,70,000 to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of income tax act, 1961 as unexplained money and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE i.e taxed @ 60% as discussed in draft assessment order is hereby confirmed. Penalty proceedings

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panvel vs. Shri. Prakash Devidas Patil, Pen

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

ITA 154/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.154/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Vs. Shri Prakash Devidas Patil, At Vadav Tal Pen Dist. Raigad, Pen- 402107. Pan : Asnpp9067B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Assessee By None : Date Of Hearing 11.06.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Merely On The Basis Of Written Submission Without Any Documentary Evidence.

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

were issued along with questionnaire. In absence of any explanation, the AO treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A and added Rs.57,10,000/- to the income of the assessee. Other cash deposit of Rs.3,42,59,902/- was treated as related to business income and net profit

Srinivasa Rao Vungarala, Ongole vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 600/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.600/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Vungarala Ward-1 Ongole Ongole Pan:Addpv8984E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Mr.Sashank Dundu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. P Sumitha, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Mr.Sashank DunduFor Respondent: : Smt. P Sumitha, DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

assessee on 22.07.2019 and asked the assessee to file explanation as to why the said cash deposits shall not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added to the income returned towards unexplained money for the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant ... which it shall be deemed that he has no explanation for said cash deposits and no objection for addition of Rs.20,15,100/- towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Page 2 of 5 ITA No 600 of 2024 Srinivasa Rao Vungarala Act, 1961. The assessee did not comply

Duddu Prasad, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 204/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Duddu Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Prasad Traders Ward-2 Gold Star Junction Vizianagaram Jammadevipeta Vizianagaram [Pan : Ascpp2269E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessment order u/s 144 of the Act dated 07.12.2019 was passed, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.12,66,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

Krishnasamy Maruthupandian, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4, Madurai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 863/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Krishnasamy The Income Tax Officer, Maruthupandian, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, D No.2/6/1531 Asari Colony, Madurai. 4Th Street, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar – 626 124. Pan: Agzpm 0804B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058168632 (1) Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Credits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.7,72,83,031/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act By Holding That The Assessee’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Un-Admitted & Infructuous For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax In Term Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

NFAC confirming the action of AO in adding the credits in the bank account amounting to Rs.7,72,83,031/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by holding that the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as un-admitted and infructuous for the reason that the assessee has not paid

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

total income. You are required to Show Cause why Rs. 2,00,000/- shall not be added back to the total income as unexplained money 2. On perusal of your Bank a/c No. 18890100006023 of Bank of Baroda; it is also observed that you have received ... offered to tax. You are required to show cause, why Rs. 15,00,000/- shall not be added back to the total income as unexplained money. 3. As per the Bank statement of a/c no. 18890100017421 of Bank of Baroda, Rs. 2,50,000/- has been withdrawn as cash

Mohd. Sadiq Safi Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4158/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrimohd. Sadiq Safi Khan Vs. Ito-23(2)(3) Room No. 71, Razzak Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Chawl, Kherwadi, Bandra Mumbai-400012. East, Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahpk4751D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals) has erred in sustaining addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer Rs. 23,34,200/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. c. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

Khengarsinh Jadavbhai Gohel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

made by the assessee in his bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money under the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Further, addition of Rs. 10,800/- was made towards interest income in the hands of the assessee

Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2), Pune

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

ITA 454/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), Pune. 49/3, Triveni Nagar Housing Society, Opp. Vaibhav Theatre, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Asppg5370A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

order dated 28-11-2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.56,18,803/-, out of which Rs.32,52,000/- was unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act & Rs.23,66,803/- was business income. 4. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal hearing, vide impugned order

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 2/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 69

explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who treated the amount of Rs.2,07,42,724/- as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and completed the assessment accordingly on income of Rs.2 ... with proper evidence. In view of this, the AO invoked the provisions of section 69 of the Act and termed the alleged sum as unexplained money. During the course of the appeal proceedings, it is argued by the appellant that the entire transactions made with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi

Madan Lal Sharma, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

ITA 166/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 270ASection 274Section 69Section 69A

assessee at Rs. 50,55,313/-, by making addition of Rs. 48,41,364/- u/s 69A of the Act as regards certain unexplained money. At the same time, penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Act, were also initiated. Separate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, were also ... assessee at Rs. 16,53,202/-, by making addition of Rs. 15,83,500/- u/s 69 A of the Act as regards certain unexplained money. Sh. Madan Lal Sharma vs. ITO At the same time, penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Act, were also initiated. Separate penalty proceedings

Madan Lal Sharma, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

ITA 165/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 270ASection 274Section 69Section 69A

assessee at Rs. 50,55,313/-, by making addition of Rs. 48,41,364/- u/s 69A of the Act as regards certain unexplained money. At the same time, penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Act, were also initiated. Separate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, were also ... assessee at Rs. 16,53,202/-, by making addition of Rs. 15,83,500/- u/s 69 A of the Act as regards certain unexplained money. Sh. Madan Lal Sharma vs. ITO At the same time, penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Act, were also initiated. Separate penalty proceedings