← 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

Manish Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 7269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7269/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2012-13) Manish Gupta, H-101, Surya Vihar Complex, Near Kapashera Border, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Amppg-7521-B बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Chandresh Gupta & Ms. Manisha Lahoti Chartered Accountants प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Joint/Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Chandresh Gupta, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessment Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received From The Investigation Wing Alleging Investment In Immovable Property Amounting To Rs. 80,86,553/-. In Reassessment Proceedings, The Assessee Explained Source Of Investment. The Ao Accepted Source Of Entire Investments Except Rs.15,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Held That An Amount Of Rs.15,00,000/- Stated To Be Sale

For Appellant: Shri Chandresh Gupta & Ms. Manisha LahotiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69A

proceeds of jewellery, routed through the bank account of the assessee’s sister, remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before

Meeta Ghosh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4424/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4424/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Smt. Meeta Ghosh, Income Tax Officer, H.No.38/7, Phase-1, Gurgaon, Vs. Ward 2(5), Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Haryana. Pan No.Abapg6666K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have treated cash deposits amounting to Rs.45,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and thereafter, enhanced tax rate of 60% has also been applied as per the provisions of section 115BBE

Ruchie Mittal, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2683/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2683/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Ruchie Mittal, Dcit Plot No.10-11, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Central Circle-1, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, Faridabad, Haryana. Delhi. Pan No.Addpg0409P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

after making Rs.42,40,000/- as alleged bogus capital gains u/s 69 of the Act and a further addition of Rs.48,07,934/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 1.1 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. AO, the assessee approached the CIT(A) where also he could

Laxmi Kant Dubey, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.595/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Laxmi Kant Dubey 245, Ward No.54, Phool Gaon, Durg-491 228 (C.G.) Pan: Bbxpd9623B

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 5

during the year under consideration and the entire amount of such cash deposits was added in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Further, as per AIR information, the A.O observed that the assessee has received interest amounting to Rs.65,784/- and commission/brokerage

Imran Rafikbhai Motanwala, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-3, Junagadh

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

ITA 217/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.217/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Imran Rafikbhai Motanwala The Ito, Ward-3 बनाम Shop No. 22/23, Sardar Patel Junagadh Marketing Yard, Dolatpara, Vs. Junagadh-362037 Pan : Aevpm6429E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Darshit Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Rs.32,10,000+ Rs. 2,50,000 = Rs.34,60,000 (-) Rs.5,00,000/-) deposited in assessee's bank accounts during the demonetization periods as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter ... made by the assessing officer for amount of Rs.29,60,000 being Specified Bank Notes deposited during the demonetization period by the assessee, as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act, was confirmed by ld.CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. Sanmukh Vincom Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1238/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Sanmukh Vincom Private Kolkata Limited 5Th Floor, Room No.5/12/2B, 15-2-380/382, Landmark Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Shop No.3, Siddiamber Bazar, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Hyderabad, Telangana-500012, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs9735Q Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹4,88,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.11.2014, declaring the total ... that the assessee executed the transactions through PCS commodities Pvt. Ltd. on NSEL platform. Finally, the ld. AO treated the said amount invested as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. Sanmukh Vincom Private Limited; A.Y. 2014-15 3.2. In the appellate

Mr. Muniyappa Ramachandra, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1203/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 69A

made during the demonetisation period was not at all explained by the assessee before him. Therefore, the AO had treated the said deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Similarly, before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had filed the appeal with a delay of 4 years, 4 months

Jaya Haresh Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 4899/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Patwardhan
Section 69A

Centre has erred in treating deposit made in the bank account during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A when infact the deposit was made Jaya Haresh Lalwani demonetization period. demonetization period. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case

Poonam Sodhi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7105/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7105/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Poonam Sodhi, 5217, Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Bfvps-5961-R बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vododara [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.07.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 8,03,000/- Comprising Of Income From House Property & Interest Income. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine Large Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Vis-À-Vis The Returned Income. Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and treated the entire cash deposit of Rs. 29,26,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), without adjudicating the issues on merits, dismissed the appeal

Rajendra Sahu, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Katni

ITA 163/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

credit in the bank account and since the assessee was unable to do so, he added back the sum of Rs.15,70,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Before

Swamini Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2533/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 250Section 282Section 69A

addition by applying the parameters of section 68 i.e. explaining the source and credit worthiness of customers and also holding addition U/s 69A as unexplained money. To the facts of the case section 68 and section 69A cannot be applied simultaneously The addition may kindly be deleted Levy

Padmalatha Vojjala, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1240/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Padmalatha Vojjala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Cajps9715B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The Ld. AO rejected the explanation and treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Page

Bangar Raju Penmetsa, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1178/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 250

relevant seized material found during the course of search, rejected the explanation of the assessee and sustained the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained money of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on the ground that the documents found during the course of search being loan confirmation letter clearly shows

ACIT Circle-20(1), Mumbai vs. Jayesh Umakant Manania, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6588/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarjayesh Umakant Acit Circle-20(1) Manania Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 131-6, Mani Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Jain Society, Sion Mumbai-400 012 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan/Gir No. Aacpm0547J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,00,00,000 on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, OR withdraw any ground of appeal

Techno Residency Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5742/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249Section 271(1)(b)Section 69ASection 80P

should be set aside. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,47,790/- made by the Ld.AO, being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,06,862/- being interest income earned ... Section 80P of the Act: Sr. Description Amount (INR.) No. 1. Income as per Return of Income filed NIL 2. Addition on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act 49,47,790/- 3. Addition on account interest income 3,06,862/- 4. Disallowance under chapter

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

field enquiry was made by deputing ward inspector and made the addition of unsecured loans received by holding the same as unexplained money. For this, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). Ld.AR ... made any independent inquiries and sit on the same with folded hands, it cannot be said that the loans taken are not genuine and unexplained money of the assessee. Thus by respectfully following the judgements of hon’ble jurisdictional high court and of other high courts and of the Tribunal

DCIT, Noida vs. Ankur Mittal, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Assessee’s

ITA 1104/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

Whether, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) /NFAC has erred in law and on facts by deleting the aggregated additions of Rs.7,46,102/- as unexplained money deposited in bank accounts of the assessee with Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.12,12,46,867/- as unexplained

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate, New Delhi vs. Bhartiya Samrudhhi Finance Limited, Street Koti, Hyderabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3491/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Vs. Dcit, F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash Circle-4(2), Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Dcit, Vs. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Circle-4(2), F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash New Delhi Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

bifurcation of deposits made in SBN and non-SBNs, proceeded to treat the entire cash deposits as unexplained money in the assessment. It is found that assessee had explained the source of cash deposits to 6. have emanated out of recovery made from its loan debtors

Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(2), C.R. Building, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3477/DEL/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Vs. Dcit, F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash Circle-4(2), Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Dcit, Vs. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Circle-4(2), F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash New Delhi Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

bifurcation of deposits made in SBN and non-SBNs, proceeded to treat the entire cash deposits as unexplained money in the assessment. It is found that assessee had explained the source of cash deposits to 6. have emanated out of recovery made from its loan debtors

Balwinder Singh, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO, in making addition of Rs.26,73,000/- as unexplained money, under Section 69A. The action of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please