“unexplained money”

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, City Centre, Gwalior vs. Sheeladevi Narwariya, Gwalior Road Mehagaon

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period to the tune of Rs.3,42,61,100/-. Learned Assessing Officer treated the remaining amount of Rs.1,84,71,745/- as unexplained money and added in the income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act apart from other additions, which are not under challenge before

Rameshbhai Ratnabhai Parsana, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Circle-2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.219/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Rameshbhai Ratnabhai Parsana Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Prop. Of Aman Ornament, 11, Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Ornament Arcade, Soni Bazar Main Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Near Darbar Gadh, Rajkot Road, Rajkot Gujarat 360001 Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1885C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08 / 12 /2025

amount of Rs. 88,39,350/- is added back to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained money. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 88,39,350/- is added back to the income of the assessee and tax calculated u/s 115BBE

Income Tax Officer, Morbi vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas Ranpura, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

present appeal is no longer res integra. The question as to whether provisions of section 115BBE would be applicable to tax the unexplained money being undisclosed gold, Jewellery found during the course of search, when the date of search is 16.08.2016, was considered by various judicial forums across India

Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology, Haridwar vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalswami Darshanand Institute Of Income Tax Officer, Management & Technology, Ward-1(3)(1), Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, Vs. Haridwar. P.O. Gurukul Kangi, Jwalpur, Haridwar-249407. Pan:Aalas6789G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shalil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Salies Gupta, Adv. & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Engaged In Imparting Education. The Ao Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.93,10,000/- In The Saving Bank Account Maintained With A Central Bank Of India Which Is Not Declared & Thus Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, Submissions Were Made By The Assessee Wherein It Is Claimed That This Account Pertained To Other Society & All The Deposits Are Duly

accepted the claim of the assessee and made the addition of Rs.93,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money of the assessee. In first appeal, the assessee claimed that the account related to some other society and not pertained to the assessee society. However

Raghavamma V Thatipatti, West Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the information furnished by the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

notices. Thereafter, the Ld.AO framed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.4,87,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT

Mandala Sriramachandra Murthy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Sriramachandra Murthy available on record proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and added an amount of Rs.56,10,400/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Raghava Sastry Kalyani Renduchintala, Eluru vs. ITO, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

LT.A.No.6/VIZ/2025 Raghava Sastry Kalyani Renduchintala Bt bank, proceeded to frame the assessment by making an addition of Rs.2,04,14,610/- as unexplained money of the assessee. Further he also added Rs.39,957/- as income from other sources. 3. On being aggrieved by the additions made by the Assessing ... aforesaid addition may kindly be ordered to be deleted.” 5. The only issue is with respect to the addition of time deposits as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,04,14,610/-. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that he has provided

Maria Rojalu Pothakamuri, Narsaraopeta vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narsaraopeta

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has raised various grounds challenging the assessment order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of

notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment and accordingly treated the amount of Rs.54,80,000/-as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.56,34,000/-. 3 Maria Rojalu Pothakamuri ... Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating the cash deposit of Rs.54,80,000/- in Union Bank of India savings bank account, as unexplained money under section 69A, as condition of not recorded in the books of account, if any in the section 69A is not satisfied, particularly

Madina Rasool Shaik, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Narasaraopet

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Madina Rasool Shaik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1, Pan: Ahfpr3787D Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 01/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

cash deposits, therefore, the AO made addition of the entire amount of Rs.98,90,000/- (supra) by treating the same as the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, the CIT(A) taking

Shakir Mohmmad, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.280/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shakir Mohmmad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Cffpm2965E Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

nature and source of cash deposits of Rs. 1,10,49,650/- treated the same as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Also, the AO treating the other credits of Rs.81,000/- in the bank account of the assessee