“unexplained money”

Tammi Raju Vegesna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Amalapuram

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.122/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Tammi Raju Vegesna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-2, Pan: Aaqpv 7090 R Amalapuram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. Ar

invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act and brought to tax the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 10,50,000/- as unexplained money. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the assessed income at Rs. 13,32,640/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred

Dy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat vs. M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

hand of assessee as per cash book and certificate of CA was fully substantiated, so there was no justification to treat the cash as unexplained money only for the reasons that no documentary evidence was produced for property proposed to be acquired. In fact, the said cash was sent ... that said amount belonged to its particular branch office, amount so seized could not be added to assesses taxable income taking it to be unexplained money. We find that the assessee has shown a taxable income of Rs. 2.30 crores during the year. Before

M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

hand of assessee as per cash book and certificate of CA was fully substantiated, so there was no justification to treat the cash as unexplained money only for the reasons that no documentary evidence was produced for property proposed to be acquired. In fact, the said cash was sent ... that said amount belonged to its particular branch office, amount so seized could not be added to assesses taxable income taking it to be unexplained money. We find that the assessee has shown a taxable income of Rs. 2.30 crores during the year. Before

Smt. Satvir Kaur W/O Sh. Shinder Singh, Ferozepur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TECH MACHINES LTD. vs. PCIT as reported in 83 Taxmann.com 15 (ASRTrib) Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Surrender of Income, effect of) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where additional income surrendered by assessee-company in search proceedings was declared as business income and same was accepted

Shri Bhavesh Bhuva, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 2(i) of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.235/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Bhuva Income Tax Officer, C-51, Khodiyar Nagar Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Income Vs Society, Nr. Chikoo Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Wadi, Nana Varachha, Anavil Business Centre, Surat-395006 Hazira Road, Adajan, Pan No: Antpb 8989 P Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 29.05.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 10.06.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Bhavesh Bhuva “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Grossly Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order On An Ex-Parte Basis, By Erroneously Holding That The Appellant Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, When The Fact Is That The Appellant Has Made Detailed Submissions In Form No.35 Itself, Which Ought To Have Been Considered By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac While Passing The Impugned Order. Therefore, The Appellate Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Being Passed On An Ex-Parte Basis, Needs To Be Quashed As Being Erroneous, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

made by the ITO in respect of the cash deposits made in the regular bank account of the appellant, by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69, which is absolutely erroneous and bad-in-law and needs to be deleted. (iii) That on facts and circumstances of the case

Keshnath Sahu, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.135/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Keshnath Sahu Shri Balaji Construction Company, Near Power House, Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari (C.G)-493 773 Pan : Cqips0706B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

aforesaid facts, the A.O holding a conviction that the assessee was found to be the 4 Keshnath Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari owner of unexplained money of Rs.1.50 lac (supra) which was deposited in his bank account in cash on 08.06.2013, reopened his case u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 ... assessee is nothing but a mean to form own capital without any basis. Therefore, assessee is found to be the owner of unexplained money of Rs.1,50,000/- which he deposited in his bank account in cash on 8/6/2013 and said amount was transferred to Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, partner

Shri Prakash Jain, Ratlam vs. The ITO-1, Ratlam

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniprakash Jain Ito-2 14, Shradha Suman Ratlam Vs. Apartment Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abqpj6013K Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2023

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 11,50,000/-on account of unexplained money. The appellant prays that the addition be deleted. Page 1 of 3 Prakash Jain Page 2 of 3 3. The Appellant craves leave

Narayan Singh Nayak, Jhabua vs. The ITO 2, Ratlam

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarayan Singh Nayak Ito-2 1, Ranu Colony Ratlam Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abapn 9853 D Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2023

passed the assessment order u/s 144 as best suo-moto assessment and made addition of the total deposit in the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee has challenged the action of the AO, therefore, the assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

therefore the amount of Rs.10,74,15,724/-, was added in the hands of the assessee, by the assessing officer on protective basis as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 17. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A) the Revenue

Sudhakara Rao Potnuru, Srikakulam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sudhakara Rao Potnuru Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.13-128, Jogipeta Street Ward-1, Palakonda Road Narasannapeta Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Aelpp5479F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

fact that the bank pass book not regarded as books of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.11,51,OOO/- as unexplained money as provisions of Seo.69A of LT Act clearly speaks that the Appellant is found to be "owner of any money bullion. jewellery or other

Ramashis Sinha, Patna vs. ITO Ward-5 (1), Patna

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

Rs.10,55,000/- towards deposit of cash in the saving bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period which has been treated as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act. 2 Ramashis Sinha, AY: 2017-18 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a pensioner, retired

Shri Raman Gupta, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

treated as unexplained cash/unexplained money as deemed income chargeable to tax u/s 115BBE. After considering the reply, this cash was treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee chargeable u/s 115BBE. Regarding addition on account of disallowance of expenses ... money. Therefore, to conclude, since, the source of the savings etc. in the hands of the family members remains unexplained, the savings itself becomes unexplained money and the AO was right in making the addition of Rs. 2,99,250/- u/s 69A. In view of the above, the addition made

Shri Nirvair Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 4 (3), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Only the ground related unexplained money deposited in bank account received from the family members amount of Rs.1,76,13,822/- was partly allowed. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed

Pankaj Gupta, Bargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Bargarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

cash transactions effected by the assessee between 08/11/2016 to 12/11/2016 were in the regular course of business and therefore, treating the same as unexplained money is submitted to be unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. More significantly after the deposit of Rs.28,00,000/- in old currency upto 12/11/2016, the appellant ... provisions of Section 69A for making addition of Rs 28 lacs deposited by the appellant in its bank account, alleging this amount to be unexplained money and such action of the Ld. AO (please read as Ld. Lower Authorities) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. Submissions; The appellant, vide Page