← 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

Mani Kishore Reddy Burgapally, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 170/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mani Kishore Reddy Burgapally, Vs. The Acit, Circle – 5(1), Plot No.567, Road No.19, Hyderabad. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033. Pan : Agnpb5055B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, SR.AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

account; 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that said amounts were already accounted for and should not have been treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T.Act; 5) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.71

Vipul Jain, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5(2), Indore

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

ITA 431/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivipul Jain Ito, 5(2) 18, Ganesh Colony, Rambag Indore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpj8206E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2024

Section 69A

total income of the appellant on account of cash deposit in bank account of the appellant by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3 That on the facts and in the circumstances ... ITANo.431/Ind/2023 Vipul Jain the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposit in bank account of the appellant by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the said cash deposits were made out of sales. proceeds

Parag Motilal Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4220/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

search action to prove the same. Hence, the entire amount of cash loans of Rs.21,50,000/- are added back to the income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately concealed the particulars of his income penalty proceedings

Rajinder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(7), Delhi

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

ITA 3176/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshrajinder Singh Vs. Ito 154, Sector – 24, Pocket- Ward – 35(7) 26, Rohini, Delhi – 110085 Delhi Pan No. Axpps 5699 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.3176/Del/2023 For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056547141(1) Dated 26.09.2023 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 27.12.2019 By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). 2

Section 144Section 69A

erred in confirming the order passed u/s 144 by the Ld. AO in which addition of Rs.90,53,179 was made as unexplained money u s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. The Ld. AO did not bother to examine the past history of the assesse wherein there

Pilani Industrial Corporation Limited, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1606/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Pilani Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-21(2) Corporation Limited, Delhi. Vidya Vihar, Pilani Rajasthan 333031 Pan Aaacp5000C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Ganatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

disallowance of difference between cash deposited AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 3,10,82,894/- should not be treated as unexplained money especially as the annual turnover had decreased. The assessee responded vide submissions dated 27.12.2019 explaining that assessee’s turn over also comprised of electric

Bindu Salesh Viswambharan, Dombivili (E) vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1065/PUN/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1065/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bindu Salesh Viswambharan, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan. A-5, Krishna Niwas, Chiplunkar Road, Ramnagar- 421201. Pan : Aknps5156Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Hon. C1T(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Appellant Could Not Represent Her Case Due To Circumstances Beyond Her Control. 2 The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.77.94,000/- U/S.69A Of The Income Tax Act, Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,59,41,260/-, by making addition of Rs.77,94,000/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money & of Rs.68,05,000/- u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained credit, respectively. 4. Since the assessee did not file any submission, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC

Johnson Abraham Kolabgathu, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

ITA 4266/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: or at the time of hearing in the matter.”

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Mumbai („the Ld. AO‟) in making an addition of Rs 1,84,56,400 to the taxable income of the Appellant towards unexplained money by invoking section 69A of the Act. 2.0 Ground No. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon‟ble Commissioner ... hands of the Appellant under Section 69A of the Act holding the cash deposited in the bank account of the Appellant as unexplained money owned by the Appellant. We note that while condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal the CIT(A) accepted the explanation

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Puneet Mittal, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 832/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 142ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,32,350/-made by AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee ... erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,32,350/- made by AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Preeti Mittal, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 830/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 142ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,32,350/-made by AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee ... erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,32,350/- made by AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee

Annasaheb Ramesh Chhaganlal Ajmera Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Dhule vs. ACIT, Circle, Dhule

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

ITA 472/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.472/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

u/s.148 or notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO had proceeded to make assessment by treating the said deposits as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act vide order dated 03.12.2018. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order

Shri Durga Devi Mundhra, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1228/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1228/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Durga Devi Mundhra Ito बनाम Sri Vilas, 18/32, Mahalakshmi Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) / Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpd-1061-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 69A

person to whom sales were made on 08.11.2016. However, not convinced, Ld. AO held that the aforesaid amount of Rs.185 Lacs was unexplained money u/s 69A and assessable to tax at special rates u/s 115BBE. 3.4 The Ld. AO also disallowed interest expenditure in view of the fact that

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

taxed u/s. 69A of the Act because the sales against cash and deposit of such cash in assessee’s bank account cannot be called unexplained money. Cash memos were immediately issued to the buyer and delivery was made then and there against SBN’s/cash and thus sales are recorded properly ... 31/12/2016 and thus it amounts to double additions once as sale duly forming part of assessee’s regular book of accounts and again as unexplained money u/s 69A. Under such facts and circumstances amount of cash sales cannot be treated as undisclosed income because no duplicate addition can be made

ITO (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Raj Vasant Jadhav, Mumbai

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

ITA 2039/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Jayant Bhatt&
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

various dates. The reasoning given by the assessee was not convincing to the Assessing Officer.Accordingly, he treated the cash deposit of Rs.53.05 lakhs as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer also noticed that there were credits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.67 ... other accounts. Even though the Assessing Officer did not ask for any explanation with regard to these deposits, yet he treated the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee that the deposit of Rs.53.05

Ketankumar Ravabhai Patel, Himatnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Himantnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 69A

upholding the addition of Rs.15,48,000/- made by A.O. towards cash deposits in bank accounts with Bank of Baroda during demonetization period as unexplained money. 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. NFAC ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs.15,48,000/- made ... towards cash deposits in bank accounts with Bank of Baroda during demonetization period as unexplained money. 3.3 The ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that the appellant had deposited Rs.14,98,000/- out of Rs. 15,48,000/- prior to declaration of demonetization so that the impugned addition is unwarranted

Meghana Paresh Jadhav, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 573/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.573/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sandbhor
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

assessment was completed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act on 17.12.2019 treating the said cash deposit as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Thereafter, the AO vide order dated 17.01.2022 levied penalty of Rs.78,930/- u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above penalty order

Abdul Rajik, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 4(1), Indore

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

ITA 407/IND/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniabdul Rajik Acit 4(1) Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Brqpr4381H Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 272BSection 69A

addition of Rs.16,50,900/- on account of cash deposits made in the bank account of the appellant by treating the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming ... confirmed the addition made by the AO on Page 3 of 8 ITANo.407/Ind/2023 Abdul Rajik account of cash deposit of Rs.16,50,900/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Ld. AR has further submitted that the AO has not given the details of bank account in which

Swarna Latha, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 10(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 306/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Swarna Latha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), 5-1-269, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Pramod Sarojinidevi Libra, R.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003 Telangana. Pan : Arwpm0164C (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.Ar. 23.04.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 23.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

made addition of Rs.10,59,000/- towards cash deposits made into her bank account during the demonetization period as unexplained money taxable u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 ITA 306/Hyd/2024 7. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the Ld.CIT

Md. Neyaz Hasan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1435/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1435/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Md. Neyaz Hasan……………………..…………… ........................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 7000069. [Pan: Argpn2639D] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(3), Kolkata...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Providing Any Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.6,70,48,551/- made by the A.O. u/s 69A as unexplained money and wrongly applying the provision of section 115BBE thereon. 3. Without Prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have applied

Vikas Tiwari, Vidhisha vs. ITO, Vidhisha, Aaykar Bhawan, Vidhisha Madhya Pradesh

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

ITA 366/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivikas Tiwari Ito, Vidhisha, Aayakar Tiwari Bhawan Ward No.3 Tehsil Bhawan, Vs. Road Kurwai Vidhisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqmpt8921F Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.04.2024

Section 250(6)Section 69A

against increase in Proprietors capital. 5.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 69A Considering as unexplained money. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee

Mallanagouda Ninganagouda Patil, Bilagi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 430/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mudnur, CA
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

part of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld.AO treated cash deposited in the bank account in the SBN of Rs 20,81,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 2.2 On an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that