← 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

Shivaani Shannaiah Niranjan, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1066/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Rajan, CA
Section 2Section 35Section 69A

considering the said submissions as well as the documents had treated the sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs, on adhoc basis as the unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted ... entire addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. Without doing so, the AO had made an adhoc addition of Rs. 5 Lakhs as the unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The adhoc addition made by the AO is not on sound principles but only on assumptions this addition

Hushn Jahan, Amethi vs. Income Tax Officer Amethi, Amethi

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

ITA 68/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

Assessing Officer has erred in treating a part of the deposits as business income and the balance deposits made during demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A; (11) Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the addition under section 69A ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 69A cannot

Mohd Ubaid Ansari, Allahabad vs. ITO, Allahabad

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

ITA 62/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mohd Ubaid Ansari V. The Income Tax Department 337, Sultanpur Bhawa (Faceless) Noorulla Road Khuldabad Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bajpa0699B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 149Section 69A

cash deposits made and cheque deposited in his bank account, totaling to Rs.34,76,500/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the same as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 2.1 Further, the AO noticed from the copies

Ramendra Singh, Kannauj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3), Kannauj

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

ITA 53/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, 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 Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

For Appellant: Shri Shvetank Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80T

transfer of Rs.22,20,000/- and total interest credited of Rs.92,198/- in his aforementioned bank account during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, after allowing deduction

Chetanbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Jamnagar

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

ITA 294/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 294/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Chetanbhai Chhaganbhai Vs. Income Tax Officer Sojitra Ward-1(5), Jamnagar Village Motiveraval Near Main Road, Lalpur, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gwgps7389N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadv, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 44A

money to the tune of Rs. 37,82,840 /- is deemed to be the income of the assessee for the year under consideration, as unexplained money, within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act and brought to tax within the meaning of section 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved

Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 551/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(5), बनाम/ A/503, Swarg Residency, Surat, Room No. 608, 6Nd Floor, Vs. Laxmikant Ashram Road, Nr. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Hathiwala Mandir, Surat-395 Surat-395 001 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aoupp 6320 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

erred in confirming the action of Assessing Office in making addition of Rs.36,94,736/- under section 69A of the I.T. Act as unexplained money. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Legal Heir of Popatbhai Virabhai Dakhra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 170/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

failed to file any details regarding the nature and source of aforementioned cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/-, therefore, the same were treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4.1 With regard to agricultural income, the AO observed that ... appeal, statement of facts and the assessment order and confirmed both the additions made by the AO i.e., Rs.12,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.14,97,000/- on account of bogus agricultural income treated as income from other sources. The CIT(A), accordingly

Bhargav Ram Munagapati, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 69A

notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment and accordingly treated the amount of Rs.78,51,300/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.78,51,300/-. 3. On being aggrieved

Melayil Razak, Nannammukku vs. ITO(Jao), Ward 2, Malappuram

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

ITA 791/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Melayil Razak .......... Appellant 12/467,Melayil Hosue, Nannammukku P.O. Malappuram 679575 [Pan: Avspr2508K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tirur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing The Sale Of Furniture. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 11.06.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Tirur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 26.12.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By Treating

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

total cash deposits of Rs. 74,00,000/- made in NRE account of Canara Bank as unexplained money of the appellant and brought to tax the same in the hands of the appellant for the alleged failure of the appellant to explain the source of the deposits. 3. Being aggrieved

Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 777/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew .......... Appellant Kollamkulam, Kanjirappally 682020 [Pan: Akypm6369A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)Section 3

While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs. 11,11,573/- as unexplained money of the appellant. The AO also made addition of Rs. 1,73,610/- on account of profit from commodities transactions. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan, Thiruvalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 770/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan .......... Appellant Valuzhathil House, Kozhuvalloor, Thiruvalla [Pan: Akaps3606C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 25.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Non-Resident Indian. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant. The Dcit (International Taxation) Lkn (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Term Deposits In Bank & Earned Interest Income Of Deposits, Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The 2 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act After Duly Complying The Provisions Of Section 148(A) Of The Act. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 30.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,44,870/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 35,01,948/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Income Of Salary Of Rs. 32,57,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4(1)(a)

only issue that arises for ny consideration is whether the AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 32,57,078/- as unexplained money of the appellant. The fact that the appellant’s salary aggregating to Rs. 32,57,08/- was credited to his NRE account maintained with State Bank

Anthony Louis, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 2(5) Kochi, Kochi

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

ITA 751/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anthony Louis .......... Appellant 40/2096A, B Peevas Triton Marine Drive Kochi 682031 [Pan: Acppl0790F] Vs. Ito, Non Corporae Ward - 2(5), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From Agriculture. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 09.01.2021 Disclosing Nil Income & Declaring Agricultural Income Of Rs. 64,80,620/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

total income of Rs. 43,57,006/-. While doing so, the AO had treated the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the contention of the appellant that the cash deposits represent the sale proceeds of cardamom received from one Shri Manoj Kumar ... could not furnish the PAN of Shri Manoj Kumar. In the circumstances, the AO drew adverse inference and made addition of cash deposits as unexplained money of the appellant. I find from the material on record that the appellant had not discharged the primary onus cast upon him by filing

Late Shri Ramanand Taparia Th/Lh Chandadevi Taparia, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centreq, Delhi

ITA 262/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

explanation. The section does not bar the application of any other provision of the Act, such as Section 68 (cash credits), Section 69A (unexplained money), Section 69B (undisclosed investments), Section 69C (unexplained expenditure), or Section 69D (amount borrowed or repaid on hundi). The Assessing Officer can make additions under

Late Shri Ramanand Taparia Th/Lh Chanda Devi Taparia, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 261/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

explanation. • The section does not bar the application of any other provision of the Act, such as Section 68 (cash credits), Section 69A (unexplained money), Section 69B (undisclosed investments), Section 69C (unexplained expenditure), or Section 69D (amount borrowed or repaid on hundi). The Assessing Officer can make additions under

All India Minorities Welfare Soceity, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 386/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 All India Minorities V. The Income Tax Officer Welfare Society (Exemption) 4-A, La Palace, Shahnajaf Lucknow Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aacta4540P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

year under consideration. Since no document had been filed by the assessee regarding the source of these deposits, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and was added to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 2.1 From the aforesaid bank statements

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar

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

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

case, any addition is warranted of Rs.38,00,000/-, the same should be taxed as a business income of the assessee and not as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 11] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

case, any addition is warranted of Rs.38,00,000/-, the same should be taxed as a business income of the assessee and not as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 11] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

case, any addition is warranted of Rs.38,00,000/-, the same should be taxed as a business income of the assessee and not as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 11] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds

Siraz Yar Mohammad Khan, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 3731/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsiraz Yar Mohammad Khan A-609, Om Tower, Octroi Naka, Waldhuni, Kalyan City 421301 ............... Appellant Pan: Amspk7554R V/S Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, ……………… Respondent Kalyan 421301, Kalyan

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Ghind (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250

erred in upholding the addition of Rs 7,80,500/- made by the Ld. Assessing officer treating the same as unexplained money w/s.69A of the I.T. Act, 1961, merely, on the basis of assumptions, presumptions and surmises. 7. The Hon CIT(A) has erred in passing the order, without adjudicating

Anand Prakash Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3537/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Prakash Singh, Vs. Acit, 4-27 A Site-4, Circle-2, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201005. Pan: Bbzps5472F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

considered decision that the AO was totally justified in treating the introduced capital of Rs. 2,15,73,388/- into his proprietorship concern as unexplained money u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 2,15,73,388/- is confirmed and ground