← 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

Smt. Sumariben R. Odedara, Porbandar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 288/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

assessee could not produce evidences for cash sales made by her. Therefore the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 16,53,270/- as unexplained money and added as the income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. I.T.A No. 288/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Smt. Sujariben R. Odedra ... amount. In the absence of the same, the A.O. has correctly made addition of Rs. 16,53,270/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money and such addition of the A.O. is confirmed and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee

Sushil Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 69Section 69A

aforesaid addition has also been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) vide order no. 27/10774/2018-19 dated 21.01.2022 as the assessee failed to substantiate the unexplained money, even before the CIT(A). Further, during the course of penalty proceedings, assessee 5.4 failed to comply the notices issued ... failed to discharge. Also, the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the year under consideration declaring the undisclosed income u/s 69A “unexplained money” found during the search & seizure operation and has not paid taxes together with interest. Therefore, I am satisfied that assessee is liable for penalty

Sushil Bansal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 69Section 69A

aforesaid addition has also been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) vide order no. 27/10774/2018-19 dated 21.01.2022 as the assessee failed to substantiate the unexplained money, even before the CIT(A). Further, during the course of penalty proceedings, assessee 5.4 failed to comply the notices issued ... failed to discharge. Also, the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the year under consideration declaring the undisclosed income u/s 69A “unexplained money” found during the search & seizure operation and has not paid taxes together with interest. Therefore, I am satisfied that assessee is liable for penalty

Shri Rakesh Jain, Indore vs. I T O It & Tp, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is set aside to the file of ld

ITA 7/IND/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Shri Rakesh Jain, 35, Ravi Nagar, Khajrana Road, Indore

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 69

that neither during the course of the assessment proceedings nor under any under proceedings, the appellant was found to be in possession of any unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and therefore, in the case of the appellant, the provisions of S.69A could not have validly been invoked ... employer i.e. Bernhard Schulte Ship Management (Hong kong) having been found in the bank account, differential amount of Rs. 23,60,300/- is unexplained money of the assessee taxable u/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. In appeal proceedings

Abedin Kapdawala, Mandsaur vs. The ITO (It & Tp), Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 359/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bansal & Ms. Nisha LahotiFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 10(4)(ii)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Ahmedabad erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. ITO(IT&TP) u/s 69A rws 115BBE of Rs. 25,09,297 as unexplained money. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)- 13, Ahmedabad erred in sustaining addition ... CIT9A)- 13, Ahmedabad erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. ITO(IT&TP) u/s 69A rws 115BBE of Rs. 24,75,860/- as unexplained money. ITA Nos.358&359/Ind/2022 Abedin Kapdawala & Fehmida Kapdawala vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3 – 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable

Fehmida Kapdawala, Mandsaur vs. The ITO (It& Tp), Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 358/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bansal & Ms. Nisha LahotiFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 10(4)(ii)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Ahmedabad erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. ITO(IT&TP) u/s 69A rws 115BBE of Rs. 25,09,297 as unexplained money. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A)- 13, Ahmedabad erred in sustaining addition ... CIT9A)- 13, Ahmedabad erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. ITO(IT&TP) u/s 69A rws 115BBE of Rs. 24,75,860/- as unexplained money. ITA Nos.358&359/Ind/2022 Abedin Kapdawala & Fehmida Kapdawala vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3 – 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable

ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur vs. Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

ITA 1312/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani(CA) &For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

that the assessee declared his income u/s 44AD. 4. In the assessment proceeding the ld. AO made addition for Rs. 25,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The relevant finding of the ld AO on this issue is reproduced as under: Sh. Madan Lal Sharma ... shows that the receipt is not genuine. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the assessee has paid Rs.25.00 lakns out of unexplained money and therefore, Rs.25.00 lakhs is hereby added, u/s 69A, into the total income of the assessee.” 4.1 The ld. AO has also added

Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

ITA 1229/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani(CA) &For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

that the assessee declared his income u/s 44AD. 4. In the assessment proceeding the ld. AO made addition for Rs. 25,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The relevant finding of the ld AO on this issue is reproduced as under: Sh. Madan Lal Sharma ... shows that the receipt is not genuine. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the assessee has paid Rs.25.00 lakns out of unexplained money and therefore, Rs.25.00 lakhs is hereby added, u/s 69A, into the total income of the assessee.” 4.1 The ld. AO has also added

Basudev Prasad Gupta, Kishanganj vs. ACIT Circle-3, Purnea

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna06 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Thus the balance cash deposits made into the bank accounts of the assessee for the sum of Rs.1534,000/- is considered as unexplained money of the assessee that was deposited into bank a/cs. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, the sum of Rs.26.64.500/- [Rs.11,30,500/- + Rs.15 ... hereby added in the hands of assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961, considering the same as his unexplained money since no satisfactory explanations about the nature and sources thereof were offered from his side. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 61 is initiated

Manuchukonda Sri Ram, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 178/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Manchokonda Sri Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-1-36, Ward-1 Manchukonda Vari Veedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Acnpr3037M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06 .01.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 69A

addition made by the AO holding that the AO has rightly treated the cash deposits amounting to Rs.27,17,100/- during demonetisation period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and even during appellate 5 I.T.A. No.178/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Manchukonda

Raj Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-62(4), Delhi

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

ITA 1135/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Maynk Kouts, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

assessment order passed u/s. 144 dated 30.12.2019 in order no. Delhi-20/10884/2019-20, considered the aggregate cash deposited in the bank account to be unexplained money and made its additions u/s. 69 of the Act and assessed it to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act and determined the total income

Madresa Himayatul Islam Bachchon Ka Ghar, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 279/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Madresa Himayatul Islam Bachchon Ka I.T.O. Ghar, Exemption Ward, Vs. Ground Floor Bachchon Ka Ghar, Surat. Kadod, Bardoli-394335. Pan No. Aadtm 1802 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69A

deposit in proper manner with documentary evidence, thus the genuineness of cash deposit was not proved. The Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed under 2 Madresa Himayatul Islam Vs ITO(E) Section 115BBE of the Act in his assessment order dated 24/12/2019

Mohammad Sharif Siddiqui (Through Legal Heir Suhail Siddiqui), Mumbai-400008 vs. Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Mumbai-400012

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Mohammad Sharif Siddiqui (Through Legal Heir Suhail Ito-20(2)(1) Siddiqui) Room No. 216, 2 Ndfloor, 4A, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers, Essa Sumer Bldg., 2Nd, Vs. Lalbagh Parel, Mumbai- Ghelabhai Street, Mumbai 400 012 Central, Mumbai- 400 008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bnqps3447H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sanjeev Kashyap, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271A

proceedings and subsequently, the assessment order was passed wherein the addition of ₹19,10,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money, being cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. The assessment order was passed on 17th December, 2019 in the name of late

Novatech Projects (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed b

ITA 1817/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Novatech Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Range-3, 601, Plot No. A/278, Road. No. A/16 Thane-400 604. Vs. Balaji Infotech, Estate, Thane (W), 400604. Pan No. Aaacn 5828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Viraj Mehta : Revenue By Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj Mehta
Section 68

Income of Income-Tax (Appeal) be directed to delete the Tax (Appeal) be directed to delete the addition addition made On account of unexplained money made On account of unexplained money under 69A of the Act. under 69A of the Act. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

Shambanna Jattappa Hadimani, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hubli

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

ITA 556/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250

extent of Rs. 3,96,000/- (Rs. 6,46,000/- minus Rs. 2.50,000/).". Accordingly, the AO added Rs. 3,96,000/- as unexplained money in assessee's total income and assessed the income at Rs. 8,32,160/-. Shambanna Jattappa Hadimani, Hubli Page 5 of 8` 3. Against this

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

which is is hereby added to the total-income of the assessee as unaccounted cash deposits in the bank account being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated for concealment of income. 6.The AO has made the addition of undisclosed business ... assessed income Rs.89,24,450/-, addition was made of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income and Rs.57,67,580/- on account of unexplained money. Facts of the Case: Appellant is into a business of dealing with lands, entering into joint venture agreement for construction of flats

Mrs Sanjana R. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward, 3(4), Kalyan, Thane

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

deleted. 2 Mrs. Sanjana R. Jain b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the transaction of cash deposited during demonetization, as unexplained money and proceeded to continue to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same ... 44AD at 8% on cash deposits. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before

Shri. Jaywant Shyam Rathod, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 2438/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raman Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

learned Assessing Officer has erred in arguing that money received in Specified Bank Notes (Old Currency) at Rs.10,25,000/- is unaccounted and unexplained money. c. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in considering the modus operandi of Small ... preponderance of probabilities here the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate its claim of having either received the amount of the said transaction as unexplained money and has also not even been able to establish that he could himself accumulate such huge amount from the sources disclosed, therefore

Alpana Sunil Shah, Mumbai vs. The CIT NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2305/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2305/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Alpana Sunil Shah बिधम/ Commissioner Of Income 23L/12Th Floor, Navjivan Tax (Appeals) Vs. Commercial Co-Op Society National Faceless Appeal Ltd, Dr. D.B. Marg, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Mumbai Central, Mumbai- 400008. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps9752R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.09.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition On Account Of Sale Of Shares As Unexplained Money U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Of Rs.1,41,761/- & Commission On It To The Tune Of Rs.2,835/-. The Assessee /Alpana Sunil Shah Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading & Investments In Shares, Bonds, Debentures, Securities & Financial Instruments. The Assessee Had E-Filed Its Return Of Income For The Previous Year Ended On March 31, 2011 Relevant To Ay. 2011-12 On March 15, 2012, Declaring

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 148Section 68

main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition on account of Sale of shares as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) of Rs.1,41,761/- and commission on it to the tune of Rs.2

M. Vijayakumar(Rep by His Wife S. Yasodha), Erode vs. ITO, Intnl Taxaton Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 689/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 689/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri M. Vijayakumar, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By His Wife Smt. S.Yasodha, Vs. International Taxation 26, Kuttakkattuvalasu, Elumathur, Ward, Erode – 638 104. Coimbatore. Pan : Ajbpv 0551B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai In Ita No.101/Cit(A)-16/2019-20 Dated 13.07.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Vide Order Dated 25.12.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is As Regard To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.8 Lakhs As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

this appeal is as regard to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.8 lakhs as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. At the outset the ld.counsel for the assessee filed application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules ... additional evidence. 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the fact that the AO made total addition of Rs.26 lakhs as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act being amount deposited during demonetization period in his bank account No.000901589886 maintained with ICICI bank. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation