← 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

Ganesan, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Nagapattinam

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

ITA 3011/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 144Section 69A

assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s.144 of the Act on 30.10.2019 by making an addition of Rs.2,39,20,031/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.1,90,014/- as 8% of non-cash credits treated as profits and arrived a total income of Rs.2

Santhanam Chinnasamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2498/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 31.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.1,48,11,700/- and Rs.43,31,358/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.7,44,988/- as income from house property and Rs.2,81,000/- as income from business/profession and arrived

H Kesarimal HUF, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2059/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

both in law and on facts, in upholding the addition of Rs.11,85,000/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money, Page 2 of 6 despite cogent evidence and detailed explanation regarding the source of such cash deposit were furnished. 3. The authorities below failed ... with the assessee was deposited into the said bank account. The AO had not accepted the said explanations and treated the said deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and in the statement

Vikas Motiram Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4741/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 69A

made the addition under section 69A of the Act and this section is not applicable in the aforesaid circumstances because there is no unexplained money, even if the statements of Nilesh Bharani are correct. The money is explained, even as per Revenue because it was mentioned that appellant took loans

Avance Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 5 of the appeal is

ITA 5420/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Avance Technologies Limited Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), 209, Kapadia Chambers, 599 Jss Vs Mumbai 8Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan: Aaeca5763B] M.K. Road, Mumba I- 400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in assessing cash deposits of Rs. 47,51,250/- during demonetization period as unexplained money u's 69A of the Act despite the fact that said cash was deposited out of cash in hand as per books of account ... submitted any co- 3 Avance Technologies Limited relation between the cash withdrawal of cash deposit. The entire cash deposit was treated as unexplained money and added under section 69A. 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

books of accounts and in the return of income for which assessee had not provided satisfactory explanation was also held to be unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and was added to the total income of assessee. 10. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee inter alia claimed that that

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

books of accounts and in the return of income for which assessee had not provided satisfactory explanation was also held to be unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and was added to the total income of assessee. 10. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee inter alia claimed that that

Damanjeet Singh Oberoi, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 317/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Damanjeet Singh Oberoi Dcit, Circle 1(1), Raipur C/O Oberoi Tour & Travels, Shop No.1, Wali Mohd. Vs. Building, Kk Road, Moudhapara, Raipur – 492001 Pan: Aaepo3096L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A on account of cash receipt from Babylon Group, addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 is merely based on third party material / statement ... from Babylon Gr.; without giving opportunity to cross examine the third party (Mr.Atul); in absence of this, addition made u/s 69A as unexplained money is merely on presumption & surmises is invalid & unjustified and is liable to be deleted" Gr.No.4 "On the facts and circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

interlinked, hence dealt together, are against the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- on account of Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction ... made out of the unaccounted cash receipt by the assessee. Therefore, the AO had made addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act 30.05.2023. 5.2 During the course of appellate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

interlinked, hence dealt together, are against the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- on account of Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction ... made out of the unaccounted cash receipt by the assessee. Therefore, the AO had made addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act 30.05.2023. 5.2 During the course of appellate

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

interlinked, hence dealt together, are against the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- on account of Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction ... made out of the unaccounted cash receipt by the assessee. Therefore, the AO had made addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act 30.05.2023. 5.2 During the course of appellate

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

interlinked, hence dealt together, are against the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- on account of Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction ... made out of the unaccounted cash receipt by the assessee. Therefore, the AO had made addition of Rs. 10,26,63,022/- being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act 30.05.2023. 5.2 During the course of appellate

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3048/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

that the Assessing Officer erred in making a protective addition of Rs.2,38,48,000/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 8. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition ... Rs.38,75,000/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,37,50,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

that the Assessing Officer erred in making a protective addition of Rs.2,38,48,000/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 8. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition ... Rs.38,75,000/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,37,50,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3046/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

that the Assessing Officer erred in making a protective addition of Rs.2,38,48,000/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 8. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition ... Rs.38,75,000/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,37,50,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Ndw Development Corporation LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3817/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Ndw Development Corporation 304, Piramal Chambers, Llp, Parel, Vs. B 201-202, Doodh Wala Complex, Mumbai-400012. Chsl, Belashis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aapfn4779C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Inder Solanki, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 694Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 47,94,55,093/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A made by the AO without appreciating the fact that in respect of 2 unsecured loans, the assessee has not furnished the PAN, address ... circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.47,94,55,093/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A made by the AO without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish complete details of regrouping made by the assessee

Manisha Kamalkar Sadavarte, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 28(2)(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3729/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Manisha Kamalkar Sadavarte, Income Tax Officer, 4B, Room No. 24, Ward-28(2)(2), Shree Pranav Chs, Vs. Tower-6, Sector-10, Koparkhairne, Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400709. Commercial Complex, Pan : Duhps2971A Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 26-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 69A

vide order dt. 29-10-2019 wherein the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 10,05,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in respect of cash deposits and unexplained credits in the bank account maintained by the assessee. 3. The assessee thereafter ... assessee. The assessee during the course of appeallate proceedings submitted that the AO erred in treating the cash deposits of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee submitted the bifurcation of source of cash deposits of Rs. 10,02,500/-i.e. she was having opening

Varshaben Chauhan, at Dudhai, Jodiya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

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

ITA 689/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 689/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Varshaben Chauhan Ito, Wd – 2(10) At Dudhal, Jodiya, Jamnagar (Guj)-363655 Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ccipc6181L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 : 31/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,68,419/-, made by the assessing officer as unexplained money u/s 69A and Rs. 24,858/-, as unexplained income under the head income from other sources. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case ... sources of credits of Rs. 18,68,419/-, made into Bank Account no. 0000078027153594 remained unexplained, and therefore treated by the assessing officer, as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Page

Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-2 (6) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ Dhareshwar Appartment 56, Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Digvijay Plot, Floor, Manek Center, Nehru Road, Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) -361005 Jamnagar (Guj) -361006 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aqkpr6633C : (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

applicable to the facts of the case. The provisions of section 69A of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: Dhruti J Ranpariya “Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar, Mangrol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Junagadh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.217/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 बनाम/ Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar Income Tax Officer Vs C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar, Ward – 1, Junagadh 1St Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ditpp9286B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts for making the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-on account of unexplained money. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same.” 9. Brief facts quat the issue