← 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

ACIT, Agra vs. Saurabh Gupta, Agra

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue, ITA No

ITA 165/AGR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 271ESection 69A

account of cash loans received and Rs.1,19,60,000/- on account of repayment of such loans in cash, treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E of the Act for contravention

Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 477/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.477/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan. …………………....Appellant Guru Kripa, Shiv Raj Yadav Path, Mohanpur, Punaichak, Po- L B S Nagar, Patna, Bihar- 800023. [Pan: Aaefn5170A] Vs. Dcit, Cc-1, Patna………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Kr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Firm & Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.1,10,77,405/- In The Bank Account During The Relevant Assessment Year. As There Was Reason To Believe That The Amount Of Rs. 1,10,77,405/- Was Escaped Assessment, The Case Of The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

said notice and did not file any return of income in response to said notice. The Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Lucknow vs. Shyam Sagar Yadav, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.446/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-2(1) V. Shyam Sagar Yadav Room No.318, Plot No.57, 225, Jiamau, Hazratganj, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Ram Lucknow-226001. Teerath Marg, Narhi, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Bdkps3230A अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-(Dr) प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Shyam Sagar Yadav (Assessee In Person) Along With Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. & Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate (Providing Pro Bona Services To The Appellant) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 15 01 2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-(DR)For Respondent: Shri Shyam Sagar Yadav (
Section 115BSection 271ASection 69A

facts while deleting the penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, amounting to Rs.60,29,841/- levied on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of Rs,10,04,97,350/- ignoring that cash deposit of Rs.10,04,97,350/- was added to the income of assessee and income

Chandra Prakash Jain, Uttarpradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle -20, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby

ITA 5296/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5296/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Sh. Chandra Prakash Jain, Vs Dcit, 308, Augusta Town Homes, Sector- Central Circle-20, 128, Jp Wishtown Noida, Maharishi New Delhi Nagar, Sultanpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201304 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakpj0890M Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Pawan Garg, Ca & Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2022-23, Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024–25/1075064329(1) Dated 26.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

coming from both the parties that the CIT(A) has upheld the assessment findings dated 12.03.2024 treating the assessee’s 2 Chandra Prakash Jain unexplained money representing jewellery of Rs.37,47,492/-; reading as under: “4. On perusal of the appellate record and submission filed it is noted that ... also pertinent to mention that the appellant has also submitted its submission only with regard to addition to its income on account of unexplained money being seized jewellery. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are hereby adjudicated altogether. 4.1 The assessee is an individual person, he filed his return

Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. Kamal Jewellers, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 161/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

stated that the AO made an addition of Rs. 6,55,12,717/- on account of cash deposit by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is into the business of trading of gold and diamond jewellery. The AO made ... Analysis In this case, the AO has questioned the genuineness of sales made by the assessee concern by considering the cash sales to be unexplained money of the assessee. The AO has treated the cash deposit of Rs. 6,55,12,717/- as unexplained income of the assessee

Krishnamurthy Pandy, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 2560/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Santhanu, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Instruction No.3/2017 [F.NO.225/100/2017/ITA-II] and submitted that the addition made is erroneous, since cash deposited out of sales made cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. However, the action of the Assessing Officer was upheld by the ld.CIT(A) on the grounds that the assessee failed ... addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned, in which the assessee

Neelam Ayurchem India Pvt Ltd, Mulund vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 7032/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

authorities carefully. We find that assessment was completed under section 144. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 2.40 crore under section 69A as unexplained money. The assessee was treated as beneficiary of fictitious transaction from MKRS ITA 7032/Mum/2025 (AY 2019-20) Neelam Ayurchem India Pvt. Ltd. Garments

ACIT, Circle -34(1), Delhi vs. Vishakha Builders LLP, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 693/DEL/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80G

No.693/Del/2025 of Accounting. Hence, AO has a Strong Reason To Believe, that this practice of the assessee is exceptional and is sourced from unexplained money. Thereafter the assessee was show caused as to why the variations proposed as the above discussion, shall not be considered final in the case ... principles of Accounting. Hence, AO has a Strong Reason To Believe, that this practice of the assessee is exceptional and is sourced from unexplained money. In the view of above points, it is inferred that source of the fund of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- used for making contribution

Puneet Kohli, Delhi vs. The Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 6228/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

account of trading of ginger carried out by his proprietary concern as a licensed agent of APMC, the Ld. AO treated this amount as unexplained money u/s 69A while accepting the assessee’s explanation that Rs. 3,54,07,511/- were cash deposits of his father’s proprietary concern

Dinesh Kumar, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5503/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.5503/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2015-16) Dinesh Kumar, V & Po Pathreri, Bhora Kalan, Gurgaon, Haryana 122413 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Duhpk-7924-P बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Ishwar, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

held that the assessee failed to substantiate source of cash deposits with documentary evidence. Accordingly, the unsubstantiated cash deposits were added as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but remained unsuccessful. 3. Shri Ishwar, appearing on behalf

Sharda Devi, Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 525/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 271ASection 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

explained and the remaining amount of Rs. 8,11,663/- deposited in the aforesaid bank account during the demonetization was unexplained money under section 69A. He, therefore, brought the same to tax @ 60% under section 115BBE. He also added back the interest received on these deposits

Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, Barabanki vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -5, Lucknow

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

ITA 130/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(5)Section 68

assessee could demonstrate that the deposits in the bank account were out of cash sales of the period and not on account of any unexplained money lying with it. He requested that the matter may kindly be remanded back to the ld. AO so that the assessee may present ... demonetization period was in the form of new currency, is a material piece of evidence to determine whether the deposits were made out of unexplained money lying with the assessee at the time of demonetization or out of cash sales made by him. We observe that the assessee had presented

Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

appeal:- (i) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs 1,14.25,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money in respect of 50% of sale consideration on sale of property. 2 (ii)The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts ... sale consideration was received on sale of land and the income therefrom is assessable as capital gains and the same cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A. (iii)The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of exemption u/s 548 in respect of investment

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Suresh Kumar Banthia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SM Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

which has escaped assessment. The AO finally made an addition of 236.65 crores as cash loans u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and also added towards interest earned of %1,64,92,500/- in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act dated ... Hence, the AO had added the total cash loans of Rs.36,65,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 5.2.2. However, the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present case of the assessee

M/S. Aryan Share and Stock Brockers Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2115/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2115/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aryan Share & Stock Brokers V. Ito Corp Ward-1, Limited., Itd, M G Road, No. 07, 07Th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, 2Nd Floor, Shreeji Metropolis, Chennai-600034 Aminjikarai, Chennai-600030 Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu [Pan:Aadca 1233 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr. Y Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 69A

u/s.69A in respect of losses incurred by the assessee in trading in the shares of M/s. Looks Health Services Limited. Losses can never be unexplained money by any stretch of imagination and hence submitted that no addition u/s 69A can be made in the instant case. (f) The transaction ... books of account and for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. In the instant case, what has been brought to tax is not any unexplained money but a trading loss incurred by the assessee in the course of equity/derivative transactions carried out through a recognised stock exchange. The assessee

Javed Munir Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5428/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 19/11/2025
Section 115BSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

treated as to the show cause notice, the said amount was treated as to the show cause notice, the said amount was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. unexplained money under section 69A of the Income unexplained money under section

Banarsi Das Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 43(6), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2277/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbanarsi Das Gupta Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B 35, Maharana Pratap Ward-43(6), Enclave, Near Rani Bagh, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahb6825L Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Vaibhav Guta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

however, did not heed to the contentions of the Assessee and proceeded to treat the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained money in the sum of Rs. 46,80,000/- comprising of deposits made in serial numbers 1 to 6 hereinabove. The reasoning for the addition made

Jashvantiben Manojbhai Makwana, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 813/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.813/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम/ Jashvantiben Manojbhai The Ito, Vs Makwana, Ward-1(1)(1), 120 Gujarat Housing Board Rajkot Bapa Sitaram Chowk Kothariya Rajkot, Rajkot 360022. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Fczpm0142M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Further, assessee failed to explain the sources of the above on-money payment, therefore, unaccounted on-money payment of Rs.80,000 was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the Act. Page 2 of 5 Jasvantiben Manojbhai Makwana Therefore, assessment is completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

Vijay Premraj Purohit, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1905/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dinar Daptari &For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

additions made in the Assessment be deleted in toto. 2 ITA.No.1905/PUN/2025 (Vijay Premraj Purohit.) 2. Addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- as Unexplained Money u/s. 69A of the Act 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section ... learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of cash deposited by the Appellant as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act even though the nature and source of the same was duly explained by the Appellant as cash withdrawn from bank

Nazareth Learning Services, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

with details of supporting documents. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.64,95,477/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act by arriving a total income of Rs.64,67,107/- and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order