“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

Mukeshgiri Hiragiri Goswami, Vadodara vs. Shri Harendra Kishore, Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

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

ITA 325/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

quashed 3) The Learned Assessing Officer erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs.10,99,014/- on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4) Honorable National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi grievously erred in law and on facts in retaining ... with Section 147 of the Act thereby making addition of Rs.10,99,014/- as cash deposits and other credit and treated the same as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before

Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1377/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(7) C-202, Suvas Residency Ahmedabad. Opp: Maghmalhar Society Nikol Road Ahmedabad 382350. Pan : Bpdpp 1078 Q

For Appellant: Shri Seem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

Section 133(6) of the Act. The Appellant did not submit any explanation in Assessment Proceedings hence AO has treated above cash deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. During the course of appellate hearing before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee

Appusamy Mani, Namakkal vs. ACIT Circle 1, Namakkal

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 429/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.429/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Appusamy Mani Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ 3/35, Mandakapalayam, Namakkal. Kumaramangalam Po, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 205. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ailpm-4646-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Nikitha. A (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Nikitha. A (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

fact and the source of other deposit being accepted from business activity only, the deposits in SBNs alone could not be held to be unexplained money of the assessee and the claim cannot be rejected partially. The deposits are duly substantiated by the cash books as well as admitted income

Mr. Sanjay Shyamrao Kadam, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar, Ahednagar

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

ITA 702/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)

assessee had also not complied with the hearing notices. In the circumstances, the AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.10,19,500/- as unexplained money and assessed to tax u/s.115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide

Ragini Verma, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir- 49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

accordingly, again issued a show cause notice to explain the cash deposited failing which why the same should not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Thereafter the AO, after giving details of cash deposits on page 2 to 6, observed from the reply received from ... period preceding and succeeding years, came to the conclusion that this is nothing but 3 I.T.A. No.1361/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ragini Verma an unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) vide order

Naveen, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 2(5), Coimbatore

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

ITA 559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

NFAC confirming the addition made by AO being cash deposits in specified bank notes during demonetization period amounting to Rs.21.86 lakhs as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The AO framed assessment on the basis

M/S. Mahaveera Minority Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Vijayanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

ITA 528/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68

onus is on the assessee to prove the source of such SBNs failing which it may have to be treated as unexplained money U/s 68 of the income tax act and accordingly a sum of Rs. 83,81,878/- being amount deposited is considered as unexplained money of the society ... that previous year' As per the above, provisions, the money which the society brought in the cash book after 9/11/2016 is treated as unexplained money and the society, though, by virtue of its entity claims that the said amount pertains to its members, the contention of such process

Shrikant Bherulal Sharma Late Bherulal Girdharilal Sharma, Washim vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 396/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Jineshi S. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

considered by A.O. and accepted by him in earlier years he held the cash balance as on 31.03.2016 at Rs.23,86,017/ as unexplained money and added the same to total income under section 69A of the Act. The said addition is erroneous and contrary to the records of earlier

Shrikant Bherulal Sharma Late Bherulal Girdharilal Sharma, Washim vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 395/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Jineshi S. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 537/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(3), 5/1, 4Th Floor Vs Kolkata Room No. 125, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaica9908Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/01/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. It Declared Loss Of Rs.65,724/- In The Return Filed On 26/03/2013 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Case Of The Assessee Selected For Scrutiny & After Making Addition Of Rs.8.67 Crores, Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Completed On 23/03/2015. Thereafter Based On Information Received From Ito, Investigation, Unit-1, Kolkata, Re- Assessment Proceedings Were Carried Out Alleging That The Income Subject To Tax Has Escaped Assessment & Notice Was Issued On 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer passed the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act making further addition of Rs.1.05 Crores for the unexplained money received from M/s. Dharmik Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., to the earlier assessed income at Rs.8,67,65,724/- and assessed income at Rs.9 ... Assessing Officer during the proceedings. It is also observed that one of the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer is towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act received from M/s. Dharmik Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.. The assessee filed the paper book containing various details including ledger account, sales

Shri Ankit Kumar Gupta, Gangtok vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 388/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

26AAA) of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 21,82,000/- with an addition u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money and levied tax thereof at Rs. 27,30,605/-. The present order has been placed before the ld. CIT(A) by the appellant wherein

Ramasamy Sathiyan, Karur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Trichy

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

ITA 324/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.324/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 Ramasamy Sathyan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 32, Kamarajapuram North, Income Tax, Karur, Tamil Nadu 639 002. Central Circle 2, [Pan: Aayps7833F] Trichy. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19..

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 156Section 263Section 263(1)

Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, inter alia, making addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act dated 27.12.2019. On an examination of the assessment record and materials seized during the course of search, the ld. PCIT

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 836/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

original addition of Rs. 40,06,327/- in respect of the credits in the Bank account of the appellant treated the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The CIT [A] is not justified

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 835/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 748/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 5Section 69A

satisfactory explanation was not offered. Accordingly, the Ld.AO treated cash deposited in the bank account in the SBN of Rs. 24,91,500/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 2.3 On an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that

Krishan Gas Agency, Bangalore vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3 (2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for 11

ITA 540/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykrishan Gas Agency Acit, Circle - 3(2)(1) No. B-6, Gda Shopping Complex Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road Mrcr Layout, Vijaya Nagar Vs. 6Th Block, Koramangala Bangalore 560040 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Aaffk4416P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.06.2024 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Learned Cit(A)’) Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060208638 (1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. The Appellate Order As Passed To The Extent Confirming He Assessment Order Is Bad In Law & Are Required To Be Quashed. 2. Without Prejudice, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer To The Extent

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

time of hearing it is requested that the impugned orders be quashed or at least addition made by treating the cash deposits made as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act be deleted, levy of tax at special rates be deleted and the interest levied be also deleted

Gagan Preet Kaur Virdi, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(2), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 290/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 131Section 142Section 147Section 151Section 69A

Rs.1,25,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer by erroneously treating the loan received by the appellant from the lender Shri Zafar Hasan Kazmiasthe unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6. BECAUSE the ld. "CIT(A)"while confirming the addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- failed to appreciate that

Vishwanathula Phanidhar, Karimnagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 210/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR appeared for Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

Assessing officer in making addition of Rs 2,51,14,930/- as an income of the appellant and further erred in treating the as unexplained money u/s 69A without giving any proper opportunity, is illegal arbitrary, without assigning any valid reasons, and is perverse, highhanded is contrary to the provisions

Suri Babu Chekuri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 191/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 191/Hyd/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Suri Babu Chekuri, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad (Int Taxn)-1, [Pan No. Ajjpc2790D] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Vamsi, Ar Appeared For Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 11/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of Shri Suri Babu Chekuri (‘The Assessee’), Against The Order Dated 29/12/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under : “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 20,25,000/- Towards Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law & On Facts. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 20,25,000/- Towards Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Even Though The Appellant Has The Sufficient Sources For The Said Cash Deposits Made In To His Bank Account.

For Appellant: Shri Vamsi, AR appeared for Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 144Section 69A

under : “1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 20,25,000/- towards unexplained money u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 20,25,000/- towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act even though the appellant has the sufficient sources for the said cash deposits made in to his bank account. 3. The appellant craves leave

J.R Agrovet, Khanna vs. DCIT, Centr Cir-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 633/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 69Section 69A

r.w.s 115BBE. 15. We reproduce below the provision of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which read as under: [Unexplained money etc. “ 69A where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money