← 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

Somasekar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 7(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4135/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.4135 & 4136/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Somasekar, The Income Tax Officer, No.3, Ambedkar Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-7(3), Old Thirumangalam, Chennai. Anna Nagar West Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Bxdps-8182-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 69A

made an addition of Rs.2,86,23,498/- for A.Y 2018-19 and Rs.3,36,73,893/- for A.Y 2019-20 as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and concluded the assessment by passing exparte separate orders u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B dated 09.02.2023 and 03.01.2024 respectively

Ravisamvel, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 4125/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.4125/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ravisamvel, The Income Tax Officer, W1-1523, Perumalmalai, Vs. Ward-1, Adukkam, Kodaikanal, Dindigul. Dindigul – 624 104. [Pan: Bdnpr-6747-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Hence, the AO made an addition of entire deposits / credits found in the bank accounts to the tune of Rs.1,00,51,959/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act by arriving at a total income of Rs.1,05,51,959/- and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing

Vandana Singh, Noida vs. ITO 5(2)(5) Noida, Noida

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarvandana Singh, Ito, 5(2)(5), 302, Abhinav Apartments, Noida, U.P. Vasundhra Enclave V. Delhi-110096 Pan-Dcrps8979A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

secondly addition of Rs.29,65,500/- was made by the AO in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69 being unexplained time deposits of Rs. 12,00,000/- , cash deposits of Rs. 9,00,000 in the bank account number 001490100016732 with Yes Bank

Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Path Sansta Mary., Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 192/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pathsansta Mary Ward-1(1), Kolhapur Kodoli, At Post Kodoli, Tal. Panhala, Kolhapur-416114 Maharashtra Pan : Aabat4234H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

notice u/s.133(6) of the Act brought to tax a sum of cash deposit of Rs.10,26,500/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act as unexplained money. 3 Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah. Pathsansta Mary 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal against the assessment completed u/s.144 of the Act before ld.CIT

Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 2784/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2784/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ward-1, Ratnagiri Ravtale Chiplu, Burumtali Chiplun, Ratnagiri – 415605, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra Pan : Aadas7630J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 69A

Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.12.2019 concluded the assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of cash deposits at Rs.39,41,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of assessee u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 25.09.2023, however ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Pongiyannan Thangavel, Tiruchengode vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2929/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

parte. In this order, the AO added the total credits appearing in the assessee’s bank accounts of Rs.73,03,119/- as his unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order, assessee was in appeal before the Id.CIT(A) and the assessee submitted that the credits

Shree Jadeya Shankarling Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hubballi

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

ITA 2893/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh Magavi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 269SSection 68

account and further, all these transactions have been duly recorded in the books of account. Hence, the above said deposits cannot be considered as “unexplained money” in the hands of the assessee. 15. The case of the A.O is that the assessee has collected the demonetized notes after ... violation of the notifications issued by RBI. Accordingly, he has taken the view that the above said amounts represents unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68

Shrishil Dhulappa Honavad, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 2347/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

verified. Accordingly, the AO treated the amounts of Rs. 5,15,792 and Rs. 1,84,969 aggregating to Rs. 7,00,761 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same under section 115BBE of the Act. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ... produced bank statements and other supporting records and there is no material brought by the AO to show that the assessee generated is an unexplained money. 8.3 The Ld. AR further submitted that agricultural transactions are mostly carried out in cash in rural areas and therefore absence of formal bills

Sagara Town House Building Co-Operative Society Limited, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2201/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gowrih, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

profits. Further, an addition of Rs. 14,70,000 was also made by treating the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The AO, while referring to the byelaws of the society, observed that the objective of the society is acquiring ... society. The assessee further contended that the AO was not justified in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 14,70,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, even though the assessee had furnished the KYC details of the members. However, the assessee stated that it was unable

Kanakapura Venkataramanaswamy Madhusudhan Karthik, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No - 1, Ramamnagara, Karnataka

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

ITA 2028/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 10(1)Section 250Section 69A

that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of agricultural income of Rs. 29,86,046/- by treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Page 2 of 11 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income ... represents genuine agricultural income. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(1) and treated the amount of Rs. 29,86,046/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the leaned CIT(A). 5. Before the learned

Ansari Pakkidakala, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 146/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 264Section 44ASection 69A

annual cash deposit of Rs. 30,94,092 from business and remaining amount of cash deposit of Rs. 24,58,358/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4.1 As the bank account of the assessee for the year was credited ... through cash and bank transfer and out of the same, an amount of Rs. 24,58,358 was treated as unexplained money, the remaining sum was treated as business receipt. As the assessee in the earlier year has offered income as per section 44AD of the Act, the AO computed

Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Private Limited, Vasco vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

ITA 8/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshali

Section 143(3)Section 69A

same. Since there was no compliance by the assessee, the A.O invoked the provisions of section69A of the Act and made addition of unexplained money of Rs.51,19,000/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.1,68,15,177/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) r.w.s147 ... submissions of the assessee and findings of the A.O but has sustained the validity of reassessment proceedings u/sec147 of the Act and addition of unexplained money u/sec69A of the Act and the CIT(A)has granted relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved

Devabhai Mepabhai Mer, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 826/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarshri Devabhai Mepabhai Mer, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No.61 Hariyala Plot, Ward-1(1), Near Trimurti, Bhavnagar. Hanuman Temple, Prabhudas Talav, Bhavnagar-364002. [Pan : Ancpm5064 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Respondent By: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 69A

appeal ex parte. We find that the assessee remained non compliant and failed to submit any details or supporting evidence in respect of unexplained money even before the Assessing Officer. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance

Mohsin Iliyas Jaliyawala, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Previoulsly DCIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia and Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 69Section 69A

respect of cash deposits made in bank accounts as made by the appellant and not Mr. Rajaiwala during demonetization period as unexplained moneys u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the appellant is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred ... accounts during demonetization period to the extent of Rs. 1,44,50,000/- as made by the appellant and thereby confirming the same as unexplained moneys u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the appellant. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Ashwinkumar Shankarlal Patel (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 145(3)Section 69A

year 2017-18 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act amounting to Rs. 11,60,000/-. 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Satyaraj Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6539/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 69A

total income in the hands of assessee at Rs. 36,65,96,841/-. The addition was made u/s 69A of the Act as alleged unexplained money in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 3. The Ld.CIT(A) during the appellate

Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 1091/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1091/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.11, Ward-1, Dhule Mohammadi Nagar, Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule – 424 002 Maharashtra Pan : Anepp8171C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.60,62,000/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money. He also made addition on account of interest received at Rs.5,419/-. Income assessed at Rs.60,67,420/-. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT

Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hindupur

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

ITA 1862/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1862/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kadiri. Ward-1, Pan: Bibpr4972G Hindupur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nvv Gopalal Krishna, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 09/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

under consideration. Since no explanation was furnished by the assessee regarding the source of the said deposits, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. The Ld. AO also observed that the assessee ... completed the assessment ex-parte and treated the entire deposits of Rs.5,67,57,068/- in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee has filed certain additional evidences including bank statements

Dandeboina Ramesh, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-(1), Warangal

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

ITA 1661/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 115Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 26,31,000/- as unexplained money U/s.69A of I.T. Act, 1961. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in charging ... absence of any explanation from the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the said cash deposits of Rs.26,31,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with

Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Rajahmundry vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1263/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-13(1), Pan: Aaypa8644C Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 16/06/2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)

deposits, the Ld. AO treated the entire Page 3 of 12 Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa vs. ITO cash deposits amounting to Rs.28,21,222/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019. 6. Aggrieved by the order