← 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

Damodar Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Brij Lal Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

deposit so added to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounted to Rs.94,49,786/-, the addition being made as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A), it was pointed out, confirmed the findings of the AO that the cash deposited ... holding that cash 3 Damodar Prasad Aggarwal deposit during the demonetization period is unexplained money by directing the AO that since the cash deposit have already been accounted for in sales and profits declared for taxation, the gross profit associated with these sales be excluded in making the addition

Harnek Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 492/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Harnek Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Jaswant Nagar Shahjahanpur Narotha Hansram Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Hdgps6958R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.10,56,500/- In His Following Bank Accounts During The Demonetization Period (9.11.2016 To 30.12.2016):

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 69A

Credit Card is from crop and straw sale only. Hence, Ld.AO erred to treat crop-sale ITA No.492/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 7 proceeds as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act, which is against the facts, illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. That since notices towards appellate proceedings were never served

Sharanappa, Yadagir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

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

ITA 1198/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

assessee had not Page 2 of 4 responded to any of the notices and therefore the AO had treated the said cash 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). Even before the Ld.CIT

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1431/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs.65,49,364/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee ... matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs.65,49,364/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1430/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs.65,49,364/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee ... matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs.65,49,364/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs.65,49,364/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee ... matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs.65,49,364/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal

Shri Shah Afroze Hossain, Bhagalpur vs. Dy. CIT, Cent, Cir-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 711/PAT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.711/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain.….…………………....…………………....Appellant 12, Shahganjhi, Habibpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar-812006. [Pan: Aapph1112D] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Patna-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹75,56,770, Comprising The Income From Business Of ₹6,54,569, Long- Term Capital Gains: ₹49,60,293 & Income From Other Sources Of ₹19,35,912. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out On 29.12.2022 At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee Pursuant To A Warrant Of Authorisation Issued By The Director Of Investigation, Patna. During The Course Of The Search

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

against the returned income of ₹75,56,770, by making the addition under the head of undisclosed business income of ₹62,22,920, Unexplained money introduced in business of ₹26,50,000, Addition under section 50C of the Act of ₹76,93,500 and unexplained expenditure based on seized material ... assessee. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) relating to undisclosed business income restricted to ₹51,13,685, addition of ₹26,50,000 towards unexplained money introduced in business sustained, issue under section 50C of the Act restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for reference to the District

R 1177 Thirumalapadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Thirumalaipadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Perambalur

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

ITA 3791/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.G.Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 80P

assessing authority also made addition of cash deposit in the bank account of Rs.99,30,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposit. 3.0 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1883/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

handling charges at port of Rs.75,00,000/-; Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act on account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42 ... Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt of Rs.81,230/-. 3. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in holding that the bogus purchases are in fact actual purchases, without any cogent or corroborative evidence, when the legal presumption under the Act clearly rests the burden

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

port of Rs. 75,00,000/-; Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act on account of Bogus purchases of Rs. 3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment ... Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt of Rs. 81,230/-. 3. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in holding that the bogus purchases are in fact actual purchases, without any cogent or corroborative evidence, when the legal presumption under the Act clearly rests the burden

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1881/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

handling charges at port of Rs.75,00,000/-; Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act on account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42 ... Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt of Rs.81,230/-. 3. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in holding that the bogus purchases are in fact actual purchases, without any cogent or corroborative evidence, when the legal presumption under the Act clearly rests the burden

ACIT, Chennai vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

port of Rs. 75,00,000/-; Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act on account of Bogus purchases of Rs. 3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment ... Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt of Rs. 81,230/-. 3. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in holding that the bogus purchases are in fact actual purchases, without any cogent or corroborative evidence, when the legal presumption under the Act clearly rests the burden

ACIT, Nungambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1876/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

handling charges at port of Rs.75,00,000/-; Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act on account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42 ... Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt of Rs.81,230/-. 3. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in holding that the bogus purchases are in fact actual purchases, without any cogent or corroborative evidence, when the legal presumption under the Act clearly rests the burden

ACIT, Nunagambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

handling charges at port of Rs.75,00,000/-; Disallowance u/s 37 of the Act on account of Bogus purchases of Rs.3,89,98,710/-, Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 39,22,000/-, Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Source for interest payment of Rs.42 ... Unexplained money u/S 69A of the Act on account of Miscellaneous receipt of Rs.81,230/-. 3. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in holding that the bogus purchases are in fact actual purchases, without any cogent or corroborative evidence, when the legal presumption under the Act clearly rests the burden

Rajendra Kumar Shet, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 816/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 69A

substantiate the same income with the proper evidence like sales expenditure bills, crop grown certificates etc. and therefore the above income was considered as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 10. Accordingly the assessment order was passed under section 143 (3) of the Act on 30.12.2019 computing the total

Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Mandya Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1 & Tps Mandya, Mandya

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

ITA 1618/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha The Income Tax Soudha, Officer, B M Road, Ward – 1 & Tps, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya. Vs. Mandya Dt – 571 429. Pan: Abnpn7222R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 156Section 234ASection 249Section 271ASection 69

Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 15,05,000/-; as unexplained money; 7. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in recharacterizing the nature of income. 8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate

Jinit Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO24.(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed, in the above terms

ITA 5701/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Jinit Shah, Ito 24 (1) (1), 101-102 Shreeji Friends Chsl, Piramal Chambers, Room Vs. Jp Road, Andheri West, No. 604, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400058. Mumbai – 40013. Pan – Dygps 9287 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. A.R. (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared His Total Income At Rs.3,61,420/- By Filing Return Of Income On Dated 31.10.2017 From The Business Of Consumer Durables, Including T.V. Sets, Lcd, Refrigerators, Air Conditions, Music Systems, Etc.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, SR. D.R
Section 115Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

source for accumulation of opening cash balance of Rs.6,19,500/-. 4.2 The AO ultimately made the addition of Rs.35,81,636/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. Section 115 BBE of the Act, by observing and holding as under: - “ In absence of any reasonable explanation, the source of cash deposits ... case, the cash deposits during the year into the bank accounts of the assessee totaling to Rs.35,81,636/- are treated as Unexplained Money u/s.69A of the I.T. Act and taxed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Further, as per provisions of Section 115BBE

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3671/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 3,60,51,890/- representing alleged unexplained money and brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1That while confirming the above addition

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3670/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 3,60,51,890/- representing alleged unexplained money and brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1That while confirming the above addition

Salim, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5816/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

deposits made by third parties or remaining cash deposits. 3.6 Accordingly, the AO treated the unexplained amount of Rs.1,82,13,081/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income. Further, bank interest income of Rs.33,699/- not offered