“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

Lagusari Pedda Sunakanna, Kurnool vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1172/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 69A

cash. Consequently, the Ld. AO treated the entire Page 4 of 8 Lagusari Peddasunkanna vs. DCIT cash amounting to Rs.70 lakhs 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 ... assessee failed to substantiate the said explanation by producing documentary evidence, the Ld. AO treated the entire amount of Rs. 70 lakhs as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed certain documents relating to ownership of agricultural land and an agreement

C 2062 Kaveripakkam Primary Agricultural Coop Crdeit Society, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

ITA 3998/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3998/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 C 2062 Kaveripakkam Primary Vs Income-Tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society, Ward-1, No.2, Barracks 320, Theradi Street, Cross Street, Officers Kaveripakkam, Arakkonam, Lane, Vellore-632001. Vellore – 632505. Pan: Aahfc5813C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri J. Saravanan – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 08.08.2025. The Assesseeraised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

income of Rs.99,38,998/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits and credits found in the bank accounts as unexplained money of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the additions made

Income Tax Officer, Dindigul vs. Krishnasamy Karthikeyan, Dindigul

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.Krishnasamy KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

cash deposits as well as the cash withdrawal, so he Krishnasamy Karthikeyan :: 3 :: made addition of ₹1,09,80,930/- u/s.69A of the Act [unexplained money] and ₹2,83,500/- u/s.69C of the Act [unexplained expenditure]. Thus, made a total addition of ₹1,17,08,540/- in place of Returned ... source of the cash deposits as well as the cash withdrawal. So he made addition of ₹1,09,80,930/- u/s.69A of the Act [unexplained money] and ₹2,83,500/- u/s.69C of the Act [unexplained expenditure]. Thus, made a total addition of ₹1,17,08,540/- in place of Returned

DCIT, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. Sri Bhuvanesvari Thangamaligai, Pudukkottai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2915/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 68

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

Vijay Kumar, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs Vijay Kumar, Ito, H.No. 841, Sector-9, Urban Aaykar Bhawan, Estate, Karnal, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-132001 Haryana [Pan: Ashpk3257A) (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Therefore, the AO has added the amount of Rs. 56,99,500/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. Subsequently, the AO has initiated penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) for noncompliance of the statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and issued show

Rahul Aggarwal, India vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3), Civic Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 6053/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrahul Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, 7708 (77 Avenue), Ward-30(3), Second Floor, Dlf Phase-Iv, Vs. Delhi. Gurugram-122009, Haryana. Pan-Ahcpa7394J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Shri Narender Goel, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 08.08.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,08,280/- Which Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass-2018Cycle On The Reason Of “Credit Card Payments”. Rahul Aggarwal Vs. Ito

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Appellant's own capital and disclosed funds as unexplained money under section 69A. The gifts from relatives credited in the capital account (as acknowledged in para 7.13 of the CIT(A)'s order) and withdrawals

Raja Mohle, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per aforesaid terms

ITA 821/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raja Mohle Chote Ragra, Indauri, Kawardha-491 336 (C.G.) Pan: Bvrpm0901R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

furnished by the assessee, he made addition of the said amount u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. 3. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC detailed written submissions were furnished by the assessee ... appellant. The ground no. 1 raised by the appellant is related to the addition made by the AO of Rs.4,94,000/- being the unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. It is seen from the impugned assessment order that the Assessing Officer has categorically stated that

Shiv Extrusion, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 250

will be 7,94,224/- as the same was not declared in ITR Accordingly, the AO has treated this Rs. 7,94,224/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147r.w.s. 144B

Sanjayji Sumnji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 310/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,37,40,789/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the act? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s.148 ... reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined certain financial transactions and came to the conclusion that an amount of ₹9,37,40,789/- represented unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added

Ajitbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2609/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the amount Ajitbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad vs. ITO Asst. Year –2022-23 - 3– of ₹48,00,000/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also examined unsecured loans of ₹71,50,000/- received from four persons and observed that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Saraf the Jewellers, Punjab

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1594/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 3.8 On the issue of cash found for Rs.103.81 Lacs which was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A, the assessee contended that this cash represent proceeds of unrecorded jewellery sales which had already led to shortage of stock and since

Mohinder Singh, Ropar, Punjab vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said deposits. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs. 12,99,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee

Sukhdev Singh Grewal, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Income Tax Department Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1308/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sukhdev Singh Grewal Ito Ward – 6(1) बनाम/ Vs. 66-F, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Ludhiana, Punjab - 141013 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepg-0070-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. I.S. Khurana (Ca) –Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 19-08-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 28-03-2025. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. Initially, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened & An Assessment Was Framed Against The Assessee On 26-12-2018 Making

For Appellant: Sh. I.S. Khurana (CA) –Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

source of Rs.2 Lacs was also accepted. However, the remaining deposit of Rs.5,29,500/- were added by Ld. AO as unexplained money u/s 69A though the assessee stated that the same was sourced out of earlier cash withdrawals and agricultural rental income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition

Saraf the Jeweller, Chandigarh vs. The DCIT/ACIT Central Circle- 2, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai vs. Ezhumalai, Thirukazhukundram

ITA 4108/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, V Ezhumalai, Non Corporate Ward- S 1123, Ponpatharkoodam, 22(1), Tambaram Gangai Amman Koil Street, Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu – 603405 Pan: Acipe8113C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits in the account maintained with Bank of Baroda of Rs.56,02,242/- as unexplained money of the respondent assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] contending inter-alia

Shri. Shanthisagar Co Op Credit Society Limited, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 2081/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

this case is whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetisation period, amounting to ₹31,03,300/-, can be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed under section 115BBE of the Act. 20.1 The assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society

Hanumaiah Ranjan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1890/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Backiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale – Advocate, Standing

Section 115BSection 250Section 44ASection 69A

Other credits Rs. 2,29,450.00 4.1 However, the AO treated the cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 10,70,000.00 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The AO finally determined the total income at Rs. 13,68,400 and made an addition ... accepted. In these circumstances, the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. 8. I have heard the rival

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai

ITA 5320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Mr. Kirit Kamdar

Section 69A

from M/s. Aneri Fincap Limited aggregating to receipt of loan from M/s. Aneri Fincap Limited aggregating to Rs.20,00,000/ Rs.20,00,000/- as "unexplained money" and taxing an amount of Rs. ng an amount of Rs. 20,52,866/- under section 69A of the Act. under section ... unexplained assessee was not found to be the owner of any unexplained assessee was not found to be the owner of any unexplained money which has not been recorded in the books of account. which has not been recorded in the books of account. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances

Shivani Gupta, Delhi vs. Ward 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee gets further relief of Rs

ITA 7074/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7074/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Shivani Gupta, 50, Second Floor, Vigyan Vihar, Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Afmpg-9292-B बिाम Vs. Ward-70(1), R. No. 1009, E-2, Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 10.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 3 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

after considering submissions of the assessee allowed relief of Rs.2,00,000/- and made addition of remaining amount of Rs.9,79,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), but remained unsuccessful. Hence, the present appeal

ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Grenic Tiles Pvt Ltd, Morbi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 624/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts of the case. (2). The learned CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.13,30,729/- to the returned income as unexplained money u/s.68 of the Act. (3). The learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the source of cash deposit aggregating to Rs.13