← 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

Jananidhi Souharda Cooperative Limited, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 6(2)(5), Bmtc Bldg Koramangala Bengaluru

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

ITA 690/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 69A

source of cash deposits & also not filed any Return of Income, the Ld. AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.5,70,98,655/- as unexplained money U/s 69A of Page 6 of 7 the I Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition

Sri Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, Gulbarga vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

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

ITA 877/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

144B of "the Act". Accordingly, the total income as 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

Karam Chand Di Hatti, Zira vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

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

ITA 627/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 627/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Chand Di Hatti, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Central Circle-2, Zira, Ludhiana Punjab 142047 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfk5503D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ashrey Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 69

Assessing Officer has purely as per his whims and fancies deemed the surrender business income of Rs. 25,64,500.00 as unexplained investments and unexplained money as per section 69 and 69A of Income tax Act, 1961 whereas the Assessee has duly submitted the same as business income over

Raparthy Venugopal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 11(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 419/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 419/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Raparthy Venugopal Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(4) Pan: Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite details regarding the deposit of Rs.15,96,398/-made during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, on verification of the information noticed that the assessee has purchased house property

Shri Alok Kumar Maiti, Haldia vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia

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

ITA 59/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80T

upholding the action of the AO by wrongly and illegally treating the entire cash deposit of Rs. 10,10,000/- treating the same as unexplained money under section 69 A of the Act. 2 I.T.A. No. 59/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Alok Kumar Maiti 5. That on the facts

Shri Ashok Sharma, Kolkata vs. A.O, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 788/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 787 & 788/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Ashok Sharma Assessing Officer, Ward-37(1), 162A, G.T. Road, Bally Vs Kolkata Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aurps7511D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 05/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. First We Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is In Respect Of Addition Of Rs.32,54,000/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account No. 504011032461, Held In The Name Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment In Ing Vysya Bank. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Made The Impugned Addition Treating The Assessee As The Sole Proprietor Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment.

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 250

requested to explain along with proper supporting documentary evidences why the excess credit of Rs. 8,55,058/- should not be treated as his unexplained money u/s 69A of the income-tax 'Act, 1961, In response, the assesse failed to furnish any explanation along with supporting documentary evidences. Thus ... Shri Ashok Sharma credit of Rs. 8,55,058/- made in added back with the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.bank a/c is treated as deemed income of the assessee for the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant

Shri Ashok Sharma, Kolkata vs. A.O., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 787/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 787 & 788/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Ashok Sharma Assessing Officer, Ward-37(1), 162A, G.T. Road, Bally Vs Kolkata Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aurps7511D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 05/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. First We Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is In Respect Of Addition Of Rs.32,54,000/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account No. 504011032461, Held In The Name Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment In Ing Vysya Bank. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Made The Impugned Addition Treating The Assessee As The Sole Proprietor Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment.

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 250

requested to explain along with proper supporting documentary evidences why the excess credit of Rs. 8,55,058/- should not be treated as his unexplained money u/s 69A of the income-tax 'Act, 1961, In response, the assesse failed to furnish any explanation along with supporting documentary evidences. Thus ... Shri Ashok Sharma credit of Rs. 8,55,058/- made in added back with the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.bank a/c is treated as deemed income of the assessee for the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Vijayakumar Banumathy, Coimbatore

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1268/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1268/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Smt. Vijayakumar Banumathy बनाम Non- Corporate Circle-2 130-B, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram / Vs. Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agjpb-2250-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.55/Chny/2023 (In Ita No. 1268 /Chny/2023) (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Smt. Vijayakumar Banumathy Dcit 130-B, Cross Cut Road, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle-2 Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-641 012. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agjpb-2250-Q (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

solely intended to accommodate SBN deposit during demonetization period. Therefore, the amount of Rs.233.64 Lacs was added to assessee’s income as unexplained money u/s 69A. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that cash deposits were out of cash sales made

Vivek Prahladbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(10), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vivek Prahladbhai Patel The Income Tax Officer, B-302, Balaji Greens, Vs Ward-4(1)(10), B/H Sitaram Complex, Chhani- Vadodara Canal, Vadodara-391740 Gujarat Pan: Babpp7859 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Visakapatnam (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”), Dated 5-1-2024, For The Assessment Year2017-18, Whereby The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”). Vivek Prahladbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 69A

deposits in his bank account amounting to Rs. 9,04,000/- Out of this total amount the AO treated Rs. 4,28,000 as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 3. The assessee contended that the said cash

Purnachandra Rao Mandava, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 52/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purnachandra Rao Mandava Vs. Income Tax Officer Ambica Street, Powerpet Ward-2 Eluru Eluru [Pan : Aizpm5102C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Purnachandra Rao Mandava, Eluru HUF fish culture activity and out of cash drawn earlier from loan account. Hence, the amount cannot be considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the individual. He, further submitted that he filed affidavit also to that extent

Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Aghpm 1625 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ramprasad Tnssjms, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri Ramprasad TNSSJMS, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

cogent reason backed by sufficient documentary evidence, treated the cash deposits made during the demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 14,00,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and brought to tax U/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings U/s. 271AAC

Dule Singh Raghuvanshi, Village Kiloki Akaladuna Dhar vs. ITO-Dhar, Aaykar Bahwan Chanakyapuri Dhar

In the result the appeals of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 23/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bvdpr0209M Assessee By Shri Miland Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2024

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.13,85,000/- to the income of assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69A. ITA No.23/Ind/204 Dule Singh Reghuvanshi 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating agriculture income as unexplained money. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

Bhuramal Tanted, Sailana, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer -2, Ratlam

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 559/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 250

inter related, they are taken together and adjudicated together. 7.2 The Assessing Officer has made addition u/s 69 considering the cash deposits as unexplained money of the appellant as the appellant has not complied to any of the notices during the assessment proceeding thereby failing to explain the source ... view that the appellant has failed explain the source of cash deposits and the Assessing Officer has rightly treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A. The case laws cited supra by the appellant are also considered distinguishable from the case of the appellant. 8. Decision 8.1 In view

Harichandrasinh Dharmendrasinh Zala, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, W-1(2), Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/AHD/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2011-12 Harichandrasinh Income Tax Officer Dharmendrasinh Zala Vs Ward-1(2), 524-C, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar Gujarat-364002 Pan: Aaipz1959K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Wherein The Cit(A) Partially Confirmed The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

adding all the credit entries in the assessee’s bank account including cash deposits amounting to Rs. 34,94,179/- as unexplained money under Section 68 of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee, including the profit and loss account, 7/12

Venkata Narayana Gaddam, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 478/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.478/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkata Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Gaddam, Nalgonda Ward-1 Pan:Afbpg8798K Nagonda (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18 in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.7,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is found to have made aggregate cash deposits

Sri Gouri Jarathi, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Warangal

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

ITA 473/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.473/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Gouri Jarathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward 3 Pan:Bcypj5294C Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Sole Ground Raised By The Assessee Is On The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.38,00,500/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

assessee is on the appellate order passed by the learned CIT (A) NFAC, in sustaining the addition of Rs.38,00,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act without giving an opportunity of being heard. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed her return

Dilip Kumar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1256/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

statement for the period of 2016 & 2017 and submitted that the AO has erred in justifying that the amount deposited in the bank as unexplained money. 4. We have perused the order of the AO and find that assessee has been noticed as it appears in the chart below

ITO, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Gunjan Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3325/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Vs Gunjan Aggarwal, Ward 43(6), 42, Sharda Niketan, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. – 110 034. Pan: Akxpb3657P

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyaya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

satisfactory only on the ground of Human probability and therefore, the AO has held the cash of Rs.79,60,000/ deposits, as the unexplained money, deemed income, u/s 69A of the Act. 2 6.2 In course of the present appellate proceedings, the appellant has reiterated the same arguments and submissions ... failed to appreciate this fact. The AO is, therefore, directed not to treat the cash of Rs.79,60,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. The addition of Rs.79,60,000/- u/s 69A, thus, stands deleted.” 3. The Revenue is in appeal raising the following grounds

Parmanand & Sons Food Product Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 981/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.37,00,000 by considering that the amount on account of unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO has clearly delineated the modus operandi of the assessee, wherein huge amounts of cash ... added to the total income of the assessee on ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 36 count of unexplained money deposited during the demonetization period by the assessee relevant to the A. Y. 2018-19. " 27. The ld. D.R. relied on the above observation

Parmanand & Sons Food Product Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 980/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.37,00,000 by considering that the amount on account of unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO has clearly delineated the modus operandi of the assessee, wherein huge amounts of cash ... added to the total income of the assessee on ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 36 count of unexplained money deposited during the demonetization period by the assessee relevant to the A. Y. 2018-19. " 27. The ld. D.R. relied on the above observation