← 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

Konapati Venkatesulu Naidu, Chittoor vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 666/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) determined the total income at Rs.66,84,483/-, by making additions of Rs.44,87,000/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, and Rs.4,77,293/- on account of short computation of Net Profit. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before

Homoeopath Toufeeq Ahmed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Phanindra &For Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 269SSection 271D

from the sources disclosed, therefore, learned Assessing Officer is fully justified in making the addition an amount of Rs. 41,53,000/- found as unexplained money. 4. Learned AR submitted that on the ground of the assessee receiving the sale consideration in cash in contravention to the provision of section

Trilok Chand Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 67(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3723/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Trilok Chand Singhal, Ito, 45, Manav Apartment, Ward-67(4), A-3,Paschim Vihar, Vs Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110063 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Ahzps8582K Assessee Revenue

Section 115BSection 69A

case Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of treating the cash deposit of Rs.400000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A and taxing the same u/s 115BBE. Amount deposited by the assessee was out of his returned income of earlier years and is duly

Shri R. Muthukumar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3090/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 R. Muthukumar, Deputy Commissioner Of 28A, Lic Colony, Industrial V. Income Tax, Estate Post Sidco, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 021. Coimbatore. [Pan: Afhpm-6834-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 234ASection 69A

lakhs from his father Shri. Ramalingam. The AO, made :-3-: ITA. No:3090/Chny/2019 additions towards cash seized during the course of search proceedings as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellant authority. During the course of appellant proceedings

Boraiah Sarala Ashwath Narayan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1037/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Boraiah Sarala Ashwath Narayan No.375, I Road, Ideal Homes Ito Rajarajeshwarinagar Ward-3(2)(3) Vs. Bangalore 560 098 Bangalore Pan No: Bkipa9121M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sripada M., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 12.10.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is With Regard To Sustaining Of Addition Of Rs.8.2 Lakhs U/S 69A Of The Act By Charging Tax At 60% U/S 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Its Details, The Assessee Is Maintaining Bank Accounts In Canara Bank, Vide A/C.No.2529101021757 & Cash Deposit Made During Period Year Is Rs. 11,40,000/-. The Cash Deposits During The Period Are Made Out Of Previous Cash Withdrawals From The Banks. The Ld. Ao Has Considered The Cash Withdrawals & Worked Out The Withdrawals Available For Redeposit. Boraiah Sarala Ashwath Narayan, Bangalore

For Appellant: Shri Sripada M., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

unexplained cash deposits during the period. The total unexplained cash deposits during the period taxable U/S.69A are at Rs.8,20,000/-. The above unexplained money of Rs.8,20,000/- u/s.69A is to be taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act. Hence, ld. AO held that section 271AAC is attracted

Prashant Pitti, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3032/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2016-17 Prashant Pitti, Vs. Acit, C-179, Central Circle-4, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. New Delhi-110095. Pan Awxpp4522D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69A

addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Page 1 of 13 ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti Act (on account of unexplained money) as addition made u/s 69A of the Act, in the absence of any power provided u/s 250 and 251 of the Act. 2.1 That ... Rs.30,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received from M/s Influence Software Architect and M/s Ezeebe Travel Solutions by treating the same as unexplained money of the appellant. 3.1 That without prejudice to the above the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- pertaining

Dy. CIT Central Circle-19, Delhi vs. Amarjeet Singh, Delhi

ITA 2830/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Amarjeet Singh, Central Circle-19, S-138, Greater Kailash, New Delhi Partt-Ii, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaipp3208R

For Appellant: Shri R. S. singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Safarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

corroborated by the evidences found. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 from Rs. 3,50,00,000/- to Rs. 16,26,000/- by not considering the statement

Rakesh Sharma, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2947/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal A/w Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 69A

rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition for the cash found of Rs.17,50,000/ cash found of Rs.17,50,000/- as unexplained money in terms of as unexplained money in terms of section 69A of the Act. section 69A of the Act. 3. On further appeal before ... cash found, there worked out by the assessee being in excess of the cash found, there is no scope for addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A is no scope for addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A is no scope for addition on account of unexplained money

Smt. Raju Bai, Village Rajoda, Dewas vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dewas

Appeal is allowed

ITA 336/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Smt. Raju Bai, Ito, Ward 1, 209, Village Rajoda, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cfipr7269M Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2024

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

made to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposit in bank account by treating it as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case. Page 1 of 8 Smt. Rajubai, Dewas vs. ITO, Ward-1, Deswas ... made to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposit in bank account by treating it as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case even when the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings categorically explained that

Yeshoda Nagaraju Likith(Late) (Legal Representative by Shri. Nagaraju R), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 30/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Nararaju R (Legal Representative), Vs. Ito, Smt. Yeshoda Nagaraju Likith (Late), Ward – 3(2)(1), No.30, 10Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Bengaluru. Magadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Alnpl 6730 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Koushik M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Koushik M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 250Section 69A

issued for submitting documentary evidence in support of assessee’s claim that AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.44,86,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Page 2 of 3 The learned AR submitted that though assessee had furnished the required details before

Lala Ram Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 50(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3621/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyalala Ram Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward 50 (5), B-68, Budh Nagar, Inderpuri, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 012. (Pan : Aafpf4344J)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

addition of Rs. of entire receipt in his bank account as well as current account of his proprietorship concern of Rs.9,21,190/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. 6. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and the provision of law the initiation of the penalty proceedings ... also not responded by the assessee. Hence the Assessing Officer held the amount of gross receipt reduced by the income shown to be unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.11,21,850/-. 5. Upon assessee

DCIT, Central Circle -III, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Puran Chand, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 559/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 292CSection 69A

assessee and accordingly the assessee was show-caused as to why this amount of Rs. 67,50,000/- should not be considered as unexplained money u/s 69A and added to the income. 4. In response, the assessee filed his reply dated 19.04.2021 wherein he reiterated about the entries in cash ... same shows that the assessee was the owner of the said money. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 67,50,000/- was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A and added to the income of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Shaik Akbar, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 454/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Narasimha Chari, Hon'Bleshaik Akbar V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 C/O 1-1-298/2/B/3, Office Of The Addl.Cit Sowbhagya Avenue Apartment Aayakar Bhavan 1St Floor, Ashok Nagar, St. No.1 3Rd Road, New Town Hyderabad – 500020, Telangana Anantapur-515 001 Andhra Pradesh Pan: Atcpa0365K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Department Represented By : Ms. Sheetal Sarin

Section 147Section 69A

facts of the case. 2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the cash deposit of Rs. 75,09,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority failed to give proper opportunity to present the facts

Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 108/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abypd 3389 E Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

cash deposit of Rs. 2,25,000/- as explained and the other cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 27,50,000/- were treated as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act and brought to tax U/s. 115BBE ... Revenue Authorities. However, the assessee made cash deposits during the demonetization period and therefore the Ld. AO treated the amount of cash deposits as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has disclosed the investments in the books of accounts

Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(1), Kolkata vs. Santa Sarkar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2102/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Santa Sarkar Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(2) Nandan Colony Rajpurrakhal Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin,2, Ghosh Road, Rajpur Battala, Gariahat Road(S), Kolkata- Vs. South-24 Paraganas, Kolkata- 700068, West Bengal 700049, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awtps2083A Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 69ASection 69a

Santa Sarkar; A.Y. 2022-23 ₹67,15,03,368/-. Therefore, the ld. AO came to the conclusion that the said cash deposits were unexplained money within the meaning of Section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and the same was added to the income of the assessee

Lagan Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1933/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-1(1) Lagan Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Room No.206 & 207, 4/1, Middleton Street, Sikkim Chowringhee Square, Vs. Commerce House, Kolkata- Kolkata-700069, 700071, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl5732E Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

unserved for incomplete address and finally the addition of ₹1,22,50,000/-was made u/s 69A of the Act as on account of unexplained money after rejecting the reply of the assessee by holding that the said money was nothing but accommodation entries in the garb of sale ... sale of investments in the books of accounts and consequently, the addition by the ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money is bad in law and may be deleted. We note that these shares were bought by the assessee in the preceding assessment years

Rakesh Kumar Mathur, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 671/JPR/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 148Section 69A

decision that the money in question belonged to appellant and the AO was totally justified in addition the same i.e Rs.12,87,678/- as unexplained money u/s 69A to the total income of the appellant. The addition of Rs.12,87,678/- is confirmed and grounds Nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed

Navachetana Microfin Services Private Limited, Haveri vs. ACIT Circle 1, Davanagere

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

ITA 904/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar V., CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT DR
Section 68Section 69A

lower Authorities is bad in law. inasmuch as the AO has issued a show cause notice to treat a sum of Rs.2.96,85.500 as unexplained money as per the provisions of Section 69A of the Income tax Act. whereas in the order of assessment. the amount has been added ... assessee filed details called for during the course of assessment. The Ld.AO after considering the submissions, added Rs. 2,96,85,500/- as unexplained money. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4 Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee filed 25 additional grounds

Yatish Kumar Kempanna, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1085/BANG/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Yatish Kumar Kempanna, The Income Tax No. 41, Shanti Nivas, Officer, 8Th Cross, Agrahara, Ward – 6(2)(1), Dasarahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 079. Vs. Pan: Bdzpk4431J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Chowdary, CA
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 69A

father's account to substantiate cash deposit of Rs. 18,85,000/-. Therefore, the AO treated the cash deposit of Rs.18,85,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Page 3 of 7 2.2 Aggrieved by the order ... from his father's account to substantiate cash deposit of Rs. 18.85,000/-Therefore, the AO treated the cash deposit of Rs.18,85.000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. During the appellate proceedings, the submission of the assessee

Shivappa Thotad, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward II, Gadag

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)

case. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in making an addition of Rs.17,73,000 to the income of the assessee as unexplained money. The assessee is purely an agriculturist and has deposited the said sum from out of past drawings and past savings. Page ... adding entire sum of Rs.17,73,000/- deposit during demonetization period. The Ld.AO after considering the submissions, added Rs. 17,73,000/- as unexplained money. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein it was submitted that the amount was deposited into