“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

Reva Enterprise, Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 380/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

core issue is addition of Rs.82,92,950/- by the AO u/s 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee did not file its ITA Nos.259, 380 & 414/SRT/2024/AY 2017-18 Reva Enterprises return of income for AY 2017–18. Despite ... assessee regarding the source of these deposits and credits, the AO rightly invoked section 69A of the Act treating the same as unexplained money. 10.1 Before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the ld. AR contended that the assessee firm, M/s Reva Enterprise, was dissolved on 31.03.2015 and the business

Reva Enterprise, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 259/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

Jamyang Khyentse Yeshi, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. Building, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 604/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

comprising (i) cash deposits of Rs. 35,56,984 and (ii) credit-card payments of Rs. 7,00,335—treating them as unexplained money u/s 69A. 3. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after calling

Hemendra Lilachand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1616/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. D.R

Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153A

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,39,94,000/- made by the Assessing officer as alleged unexplained money u/s, 69A of the Act. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming ... submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,39,94,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as alleged unexplained money u/s. 69. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not appreciated the evidences and other materials placed in record in support

Sureshkumar Manchandbhai Shah, Palanpur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Palanpur

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

ITA 1336/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 694Section 69A

confirming addition of Rs. 51,19,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank accounts during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 694 r.w.s. 115BBE is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. I.T.A No. 1336/Ahd/2025 Sureshkumar Manchandbhai Shah ... grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding cash deposits made in bank account during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 694 r.w.s 115BBE and thereby making addition of Rs. 5,51,19,000/-. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Navdeep Medical Store, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/AHD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

actual cash deposits amounted to Rs.29,78,000, and not Rs.1,87,92,700/-. The Assessing Officer, however, treated these cash deposits as unexplained money and made an addition of Rs.29,78,000 under section 69A of the Act. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials

Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai

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 5726/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Respondent: Mr. Haridas Bhatt

Section 115BSection 69A

prays that that that addition addition addition of of of Rs.1,00,00,000/ Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money may u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money may please be deleted. please be deleted. GROUND III Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni

Ador Welding Limited (Successor of Ador Fontech Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we set-aside the order of the Ld

ITA 3338/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2021-22 Ador Welding Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor Of Ador Fontech Limited), Income Tax, Ador House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), 6 K Dubash Marg, Fort, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aaaca9076B Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

FY.2020- 21 and offered to tax as business income. 17. It was further submitted that Section 69A of the Act deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles. It provides that where an assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article ... foundational requirement for invoking section 69A is entirely absent. The assessee has not been found to be the owner or in possession of any unexplained money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article. There is also no allegation or finding that any such asset is not recorded in the books

Singla Apparels Private Limited, Gandhi Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

both parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, AO has made an addition of INR 1,86,16,753/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being the ITA Nos.3445 & 5163/Del/2024 cash deposited in SBN during the demonetization period claimed as made out of cash

Singla Apparels Pvt Ltd, Gandhi Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3445/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Chander Sekhar Pahariya, Bhander vs. Assessing Officer, Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

filed his submissions during the assessment proceedings. After considering assessee’s submissions, learned Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,03,753/- u/s. 69A as unexplained money, Rs.3,28,272/- as income from other sources, Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and Rs.30 ... main point for determination under appeal is as to whether Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,03,753/- as unexplained money and Rs.30,52,957/- as unexplained cash credit in the total income of the assessee ? 7. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that

Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-6, Patna

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

ITA 269/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

nothing but an ex-parte order wherein authority has held entire cash deposit of 2,22,49,200/- deposited during demonetization period as unexplained money under section 69A of IT Act and added to total income of the appellant and taxed under section 115 BBE of the Act at rate ... this Hon'ble Tribunal to submit entire books of account in hard copy for end of justice. 8. For that addition of income as unexplained money (under Section 69A) Rs. 2,22,49,200/- and tax imposed on it at the rate of 60% (under Section 115BBE

Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 622/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf .......... Appellant Kulathumkuzhiyil, Velloor, Kottayam 686501 [Pan: Bzvpa6849J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 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 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Act Was Filed For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Received Interest Income From United India Insurance Company Ltd. Or Rs. 29,03,429/- During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 2 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf 31.03.2022. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 148 Nor U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Issued By The Ao Calling For Certain Information. In The Circumstances, The Ao Was Constrained To Pass Best Judgement Assessment By Bringing To Tax The Interest Income Of Rs. 29,03,429/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

circumstances, the AO was constrained to pass best judgement assessment by bringing to tax the interest income of Rs. 29,03,429/- as unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the interest income was received on account of compensation

Ramanand Maurya, Ichauli, Barabanki, Up vs. ITO-5(5) Barabanki-2, Barabanki Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 19Section 253(3)Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the A.O. has arbitrarily upheld the addition of Rs.13,86,594/- as unexplained money u/s 69A resulting in levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961, without proper inquiry and which was I.T.A. No.666/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year

Vibha Singh, Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 19Section 253(3)Section 69A

Truptiben Nilangkumar Trivedi, Anand vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltruptiben Nilangkumar The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Trivedi, Ward-1, 2/A, Vivekanand Wadi, Anand. Opp Dena Parivar Society, Vidyanagar Road, Anand-388001. [Pan :Agipt7745 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Karan Sukhramani, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Karan Sukhramani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 151ASection 68

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding addition on account of alleged unexplained money amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, when no such addition is called for. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or ... cash was received collectively by them. The Assessing Officer, however, failed to appreciate the joint ownership and erroneously treated the entire cash receipt as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee alone. Considering the facts of the case, and the joint nature of ownership and receipt of sale proceeds

Bhavin Vinubhai Thakkar, Radhanpur vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Patan

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

ITA 1587/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbhavin Vinubhai Thakkar, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. I-128, Ambikanagar, Ward-3, Radhanpur-385340. Patan. Gujarat. [Pan :Adypt4502 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 270ASection 69A

Faceless Appeal centre has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.40,55,603/- being opening balance of cash in hand as on 01.04.2016 as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case well

Hareshbhai Parshottambhai Vekariya, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction - the ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1586/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhareshbhai Parshottambhai National Faceless Appeal Vs. Vekariya, Centre, Delhi B/53, Bhumipark Society, (Present Jurisdiction Khodiyarnagar Road, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyarnagar, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad.) Ahmedabad-382350. [Pan :Agspv8227 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Biren Shah, With Shri Gulab Thakor, Ars Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, with Shri Gulab Thakor, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 30Section 68

Sangeeta Yadav, K V Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1506/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed.

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

/CIT(A) is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in law. 2. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 19,25,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 26,35,565 being

Kirit Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1458/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1458/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kirit Kumar Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(2) Pan:Aehpp6614E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

investment in the purchase of the flat and the source for the cash deposit in the bank account. He treated the said amounts as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and, accordingly, made additions of Rs.79,60,000/- (on account of investment in purchase of flat) and Rs.14 ... consideration is fully reflected in the regular books of accounts of the assessee as well as the vendor, there cannot be any presumption of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The registered sale deed stating that the consideration has been received only confirms the accounted book entry