← 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

M/S.Standard Fireworks P Ltd, Sivakasi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal stand allowed

ITA 279/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,29,32,000/-being the cash deposits during the demonetization period into the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the findings from para ... Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not rejected the books of accounts, the action in mechanically brining to tax the entire cash deposits as unexplained money within the scope of section 69A read with section 115 BBE of the Act was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both

Sekar Jayalakshmi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-22(2), West Tambaram

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

ITA 20/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.20/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Doshi – Nakshatra-1, Old Sbi Colony, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Near Rto, 2E Swathi Block, West Tambaram. Tambaram, Tamil Nadu 600 045. [Pan:Awipj1285G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 248 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in adding ₹.6,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act without considering the confirmation given by the assessee’s husband. It was further submission that ... applicable to the appellant”. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) treated the addition of ₹.6,00,000/- as 4 I.T.A. No. 20/Chny/21 unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and confirmed the addition. Section 68 of the Act deals with “unexplained Credit” in the books of the assessee and section

Mr.N. Venkatesh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Inttaxn Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 449/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.449/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri N. Venkatesh, Vs. The Income Tax, 5/14, Singilipatty, L. Kanavaipatty, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Namakkal 637 002, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Adupv3691F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.05.2017 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.1,95,490/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

from 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 in both the NRE and NRO account. Accordingly, the above amount of ₹.11,70,500/- was brought to tax as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the extent

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 221/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

taxed under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), as assessee’s unexplained money OR only 8% of the cash deposits has to be brought to tax under ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 8 section 44Ad of the Act as treating the same ... that the cash deposits were receipts from civil contract works undertaken by the assessee. The AO therefore brought to tax the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 220/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

taxed under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), as assessee’s unexplained money OR only 8% of the cash deposits has to be brought to tax under ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 8 section 44Ad of the Act as treating the same ... that the cash deposits were receipts from civil contract works undertaken by the assessee. The AO therefore brought to tax the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 219/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

taxed under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), as assessee’s unexplained money OR only 8% of the cash deposits has to be brought to tax under ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 8 section 44Ad of the Act as treating the same ... that the cash deposits were receipts from civil contract works undertaken by the assessee. The AO therefore brought to tax the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

taxed under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), as assessee’s unexplained money OR only 8% of the cash deposits has to be brought to tax under ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 8 section 44Ad of the Act as treating the same ... that the cash deposits were receipts from civil contract works undertaken by the assessee. The AO therefore brought to tax the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 217/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

taxed under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), as assessee’s unexplained money OR only 8% of the cash deposits has to be brought to tax under ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 8 section 44Ad of the Act as treating the same ... that the cash deposits were receipts from civil contract works undertaken by the assessee. The AO therefore brought to tax the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 216/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

taxed under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), as assessee’s unexplained money OR only 8% of the cash deposits has to be brought to tax under ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 8 section 44Ad of the Act as treating the same ... that the cash deposits were receipts from civil contract works undertaken by the assessee. The AO therefore brought to tax the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 138/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,57,00,114/- made by the learned assessing officer as unexplained money invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income ... were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 9. The learned Commissioner

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 137/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,57,00,114/- made by the learned assessing officer as unexplained money invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income ... were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 9. The learned Commissioner

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2306/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,57,00,114/- made by the learned assessing officer as unexplained money invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income ... were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 9. The learned Commissioner

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2305/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,57,00,114/- made by the learned assessing officer as unexplained money invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income ... were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 9. The learned Commissioner

Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Vs. The Ito, Sriya, 109, 3Rd Main, Sfs 407, 4Th Ward – 3(3)(3), Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan : Abips 5283 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Anil Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 69A

therefore, treated the cash deposit of Rs.15 lakhs under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) as unexplained money. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO for the very same reason that were assigned

M/S. Kopran Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 501/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 133Section 143Section 68

unable to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the impugned 5 parties. In the result, the sum of Rs.3.5 crores has rightly been treated as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act by the Id. Assessing Officer. We set aside the order of Id. CIT (A) and restore that

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 433/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

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

Asokan Meena, Proprietor, Villupuram vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.680/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms.Asokan Meena, V. The Income Tax Officer, 12-Feb, Nakkiyar Street, Virugavur, Ward-2, Villupuram. Villupuram.

For Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 115BSection 44ASection 69A

cover up cash deposits made into bank account. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and made additions of Rs.24,66,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT

S.Gopi, Dharmapuri vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 468/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 468/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri. S. Gopi, Acit, Prop: S.S. Jewellery, V. Central Circle, 38/118, Duraisamy Naidu Street, Salem. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan:Acdpg-9303-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132ASection 153ASection 271ASection 69A

business and further, no cash book /documents were produced and thus, made addition of Rs. 89,12,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB of the Act was initiated and accordingly notice u/s. 271AAB r.w.s. :-4-: ITA. No:468/Chny/2019

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1435/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 3Section 69A

Facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of Unexplained money u/s 69A of Rs. 17,47,66,250/-, the details of which were maintained in the Cash Transaction Record maintained in an excel sheet by Shri Ashok ... admissible evidence. 3.16 Accordingly the cash involved the above sated transactions totaling to Rs.17,47,66,2507- for A.Y 2014-15 is treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and taxed as assessee's income for the year under consideration. This income will be taxed u/s.115BBE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

account of the assessee. The money transferred from his own foreign bank a/c to his own NRI A/c in India. This will not attract unexplained money. 69C: Unexplained This section will not attract as no expenditure is involved. Expenditure 17. Reference to the Board circular by Assessing Officer is also