← 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

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Fatehabad vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

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

Rajiv Kumar Goyal, Dhuri vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have ... Judicature at Madras Wherein it is stated that there is a series of five provisions viz.. Section 69-Unexplained investments, Section 69A-Unexplained money, etc., Section 69B-Amoutn of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account 69C-Unexplained expenditure, etc. and 69D-Amount borrowed or repaid

Parshotamdas Somabhai Patel, Jinaj, Khambhat, Anand vs. CIT (A), NFAC

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

ITA 867/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

sale of agricultural produce. 3. The AO was not satisfied with the above explanation and treated the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the same the assesee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT ... appeal. Parshotamdas S Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2011-12 3 1. The learned AO wrongly made addition of INR 18,20,639 as unexplained money without considering the materials on record. 2. The learned CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal by considering leaned AO's grounds only. 3. The learned

Shahid Qureshi, Ratlam vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC

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

ITA 417/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishahid Qureshi Ito-1 17, Purohit Ji Ka Was, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ecops1305G Assessee By Shri Kaid Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

facts of the case has made an addition of Rs. 5,69,68,444/- by treating the Credit in bank account as an unexplained money U / s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961, without giving the proper ITANo.417/Ind/2023 Shahid Qureshi opportunity of being heard. Order ... been passed. Hon'ble CIT(Appeal) didn't Consider Amount credit in bank by various Meat Supplier as Business transaction and treated as an unexplained money U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2.The Hon'ble CIT(Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case

Mr. Jaganathan Anandan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-10(2), Chennai

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

ITA 790/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.790/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Mr. Jaganathan Anandan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 76, 10, Kannaiah Street, Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Afzpa9672C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Sridevi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Exparte Order Dated 21.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Dismissing The Appeal For Want Of Prosecution.

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sridevi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144

compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act and inter alia making addition on account of unexplained money and unexplained cash credits and determined the income of the assessee at ₹.22,84,918/-. Having aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer

Sanjiv Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3524/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3524/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Sanjiv Jain Ito, C-2/56, Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs. Ward-11(3), New Delhi. C.R. Building, Pan No.Aafpj2233H I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 129Section 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.12,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained money alleging the demonetized currency of the said amount deposited in the regular bank accounts of the assessee during the relevant period ignoring the submissions and evidence placed

Byereddy Madhavilatha, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.406/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Byereddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Madhavilatha Ward 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aqrpm0321H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca K. Abhiroop Bhargav राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

For Appellant: CA K. Abhiroop BhargavFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer/CIT (A) erred in carrying out an addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. Page 1 of 5 ITA No.406 of 2024 Byereddy Madhavilatha 3. That on the facts and circumstances

Shri. Vijaya Narasimha Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -8(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 282/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in making an addition of Rs. 3,01,81,318/-, as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in making addition

Rohit Vijay, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 754/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

entries appearing in the bank accounts held by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,56,08,527/- under Section 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) however, despite issuance of as many as six notices of hearing issued

Munirabanu Mohammed Safi Shaikh, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 680/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

found to be satisfactory. That before adverting further, the relevant extract of the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Section 69A, which reads as under: - "Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to he the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

Sri Kalyana Venkata Narasimha Murthy Mangipudi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle--2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 276/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.276/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sri Kalyana Venkata Narasimha Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Murthy, Mangipudi, Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Afkpm 0305 F Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Hemanth Pai ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Hemanth PaiFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234BSection 69A

justified in upholding addition made b the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 26,50,000/- being alleged unexplained money on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, sale proceeds of flat in the year 2011-12 to the tune ... years amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- were generated through agricultural produce and erred in treating the same as income by treating it as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by treating

Sri Ambica Medical Agenices, Kavali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nellore

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

ITA 135/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 135/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Sri Ambica Medical Vs. Income Tax Officer Agencies, Kavali Ward-2 A.P Nellore Pan: Abwfs4716L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Nithin Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Nithin KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

facts in not holding that the treatment of cash deposit of Rs. 45,54,221 during the demonetisation period as unexplained money while accepting that the cash deposits made outside the demonetisation period are turnover of the Appellant. 5. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred

Mohammed Niyamath Ulla, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(8), Bengaluru

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

ITA 693/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar & Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 11Section 234Section 250Section 69A

assessing officer were not justified in treating the payments made by the appellant towards credit card payments amounting to Rs. 7,69,800/- as unexplained money invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income

Krishnappa Govindappa, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 69Section 69A

furnish evidence in support of the same, only copies of RTC was submitted. Accordingly, the agricultural income declared by the assessee was treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A. The AO further noted that during the demonetisation period a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was deposited in its SB A/c maintained with ... However the assessee did not furnish copy of bank statement and was unable to explain the source. Accordingly this income was also treated as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act and assessment was completed. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and submitted past three years

Palaniappan Maheswaran, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thiruchengodu

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

ITA 277/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 277/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Palaniappan Maheswaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.96, Pannakadu, Velur Road, Ward 1, Valarigate, Suriyampalayam Post, Tiruchengode Tiruchengodu, Namakkal District – 637 209. [Pan: Anvpm 1287D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 2Section 250Section 251Section 69A

assessing officer (In short ‘AO’) found that assessee has made old currencies (SBN note Rs.500/- & Rs.1000/-) to the tune of Rs.13,30,500/- and unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before

Saroj Sangwan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2428/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2428/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

case of the Appellant amounting to Rs.12,50,000/-on account of cash deposit made during the impugned financial year being treated as unexplained money. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and confirmed ... principles of natural Justice. The Ld. AO passed the order in an arbitrary manner without mentioning any section under which addition for unexplained money and disregarded the return of income and responses filed by the Appellant. 4. The Reassessment proceedings and the impugned order passed by Ld. AO and confirmed

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

filed following grounds of appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances in Law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4285000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 in contrary to addition of Rs.4096805/- as unexplained credits u/s 68 of same ... have erred in converting non-taxable exempt/agricultural Income to taxable unexplained cash credit u/s 68 by Ld. A.O., or unexplained money etc u/s 69A by Ld CIT(A) as Both (Ld A.O. & Ld CIT(A) are not sure in Law under which section it should be taxable as both failed

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Harjinder Talwar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1741/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit, Vs Harjinder Talwar, Central Circle-17, 115, Vardhman Market, Ram Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi-110092. Pan-Apgpt8373N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Shikar Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-27, New Delhi Dated 01.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 69A

invoked the provision of section 69A r.w.s115BE of the Act. For the sake of clarity, section 69A of the Act is reproduced 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

The Muslim Education Soc, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 588/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.588/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Muslim Education Soc., Vs. Ito, Ratnagiri. Saitavade, Ratnagiri- 415613 Pan : Aaatt8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. U/S 69A Of Rs. 13,17,470/- As Unexplained Money In Respect Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account, In Spite Of The Appellant Having A Clear Explanation For The Source Of Investment. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Ground Of Appeal Or Raise A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition by the A.O. u/s 69A of Rs. 13,17,470/- as unexplained money in respect of cash deposited in bank account, in spite of the appellant having a clear explanation for the source of investment. The appellant ... reply. Even after further six days the assessee did not complied with the said notice. The AO 3 therefore added Rs.13,17,470/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act & passed the assessment order dated 26-12-2019 u/s 143(3)/147 of the IT Act by determining

Abdul Sattar Bashamiyan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1241/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: CA Rameshwar L. NehereFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023 1. “Learned CIT erred by invoking section 69A, as the there is no unexplained money, since sized cash is reflected in the in the cash book, and nature of business i.e., cash sales is totally ignored. 2. Learned