“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

Perur Builders Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Ward 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 635/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 69A

funds. Accordingly, the addition made by the Ld.CIT(A) amounting to INR 73,70,235 on account of deposits received by the Appellant as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case and hence liable to be deleted ... concluded that the cash deposits of Rs.73,70,235/- made in the assessee’s bank account maintained with Bank of India represented unexplained money, the source of which remained unproved. The AO therefore, treated the said amount as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and made an addition

Parathasaarathy Gajendran, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2196/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2196/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parthasarathy Gajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Long Bazaar, Near Market, Ward 1, Vellore 632 004. Vellore. [Pan:Aaepp4858R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 310 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 69A

consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing officer on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4. It is noted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny ... afterthought, did not 3 I.T.A. No.2196/Chny/25 accept the explanation offered by the assessee. He added an amount of ₹.26,50,000/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same by recording his reasons vide para 6.3 & 6.4 of the impugned

Mrs. Sisily Jose, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1637/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1637/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. V.P. Kuriyachan, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 69A

Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’), made an addition of agricultural income of Rs.39,81,121/- to the total income as ‘Unexplained money u/s.69A’ and raised a demand amounting to Rs. 42,01,763/- and also initiated penalty proceedings. 6. Aggrieved by the above order ... assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), deleted the addition of agricultural income as unexplained money, however, treating the agricultural income as cultivation and treatment of smoked rubber sheets is income from sale of centrifuged latex under Rule 7 and 7A of the Income Tax Rules

Sanjay Wahi, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 3, Delhi

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

ITA 2198/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjay Wahi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 64 Mini Market, Janpath, Income Tax, Circle-3, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi-1100 01 Pan: Aaapw4145N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Amit Kaushik & HimanshuFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

record that Revenue has not found any money or bullion or jewellery in the possession of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any unexplained money or article, the provisions of section 69A cannot be invoked. In the given case, what is found is certain documents which contained certain details

Rakhi Agarwal, Gwalior vs. ACIT, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AGR/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rakhi Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Krishna Bhawan Opp, Gwalior Morena Wala Halwai, Daulat Ganj Lashkar, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aeapa9383A Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made in some of ₹13,84,500/- as unexplained money in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Rakhi Agarwal 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record ... made from the bank. The ld AO not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee added the sum of ₹13,84,500/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee furnished the explanation of source of cash deposits in much detailed

Swapnil Prabhakar Naik, Khandola Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Panaji, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 121/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 5ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Santosh Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 294/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

assessee had received amounts from various parties and the total cash deposits during the demonetization period of = 18,59,000/-were treated as unexplained money as per the provision of section 69A of the Act. Further, the entire credits/deposits in the account, including cash deposits, clearing, RTGS, NEFT aggregating ... Santosh Kumar. explanation about the cash deposits of %18,59,000/- during the demonetization period, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money and added the same u/s 69A of the Act. Further with respect to remaining amount of %61,01,305/-, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee

Vijayakumar Sivanndan Nair, Cherthala vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 658/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.AR stated that appeal was filed with a delay of 268 days before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of Ld.AO. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without considering the merit of the case and rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.3. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the appeals on the ground of limitation, without allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee on merits. In our considered view, reasonable opp

For Appellant: Shri Rajanesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, (SR.AR.)

Section 147Section 250

completed the assessment by additions amount to Rs. 89,97,600/- related unexplained investment and amount to Rs. 224,000/- related unexplained money. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).The Ld.AR stated that appeal was filed with a delay of 268 days before

Sunil Kumar Gattani, Jaipur vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 2, Jaipur

In the result ground no. 7

ITA 1142/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

this, addition to the tune of Rs.1,56,15,565/- was made u/s 69A by alleging cash found during the course of search as unexplained money and further addition to the tune of Rs.99,29,064/- was made on account of jewellery found during search as unexplained u/s 69A. Also ... dated 23.01.2024 under identical circumstances has held as under: Section 69A, read with sections 69B and 28(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained money (Amount disclosed at survey) - Assessment year 2019-20 During course of survey under section 133A, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables, stating that

Nimera Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Nimeda, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Ward 7(1), Jaipur

17. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing

ITA 1112/JPR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

regarding genuineness of cash deposit transactions or to prove its innocence, the entire amount of Rs. 61,16,200/- was to be treated as unexplained money as per provisions of section 69A of the Act. Consequently, said income was added to the income of the assessee. 8. In the course ... amount of cash deposits remained unexplained. Accordingly, Learned CIT(A) upheld the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the said cash deposits were unexplained money. The appeal filed by the assessee was therefore dismissed. 13. In the face of the non compliance of the certain notices, including show cause

Neetinkumar Chimanlal Patel, Patan vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Patan

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

ITA 1588/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarneetinkumar Chimanlal Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shamani No Madh At Chanasma, Ward-3, Po Chanasma, Patan. Ta. Chanasma, Patan-384220. [Pan :Agppp8579 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Adjournment Application Filed Respondent By: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.11.2025

For Appellant: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed or furnish any documentary Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– evidence in support of cash deposits treated as unexplained money. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished

Shri Vicky Rajesh Lalwani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1811/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarshri Vicky Rajesh Lalwani, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. D-433, 4Th Floor, Ward-7(2)(5), Gita Mandir Road, Ahmedabad. Sumel Business Park-3, Raipur, Ahmedabad-380002. [Pan :Ahapl9760 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.1,00,43,836/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in invoking the provisions of S.115BBE ... that the assessee remained non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed or furnish any documentary evidence in support of cash deposits treated as unexplained money. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished

Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Sangola vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1735/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1735 & 1734/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Achakdani, Ward-2, Pandharpur Achakdani Sangole, Solapur – 413306 Maharashtra Pan : Anupm5837C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

stamp duty challans after retaining nominal commission of Rs.100 per transaction and therefore, the action of the A.O. in taxing the entire credits as unexplained money u/s 69A was apparently unjustified on facts. 4] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had furnished voluminous documentary evidences running

Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Sangola vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1734/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Genesis Advertising Pvt Ltd 2 Ujjal Sinha showing receipt of the loan of Rs.71,50,000/-. He further submits that there is no unexplained money or undisclosed source as alleged in the assessment order and the assessee duly explained the source of fund for giving the said loan of Rs.71

Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax) Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4972/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Income Tax Officer Ward No. 64, Balasinor Society, S.V. Road, Vs 2(1)(1) Mumbai, Room No. 618, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067, Maharashtra Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, [Pan No. Aacpc 4520F] Int Tax Ward, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153(2)Section 253

erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2.50 crore under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money merely relying on some seized material (promissory note) found during the course of search action in case of Jesus Lal and Universal Education group and the statement of Chaitale Patel ... details of cash withdrawal and transfer. The assessing officer also issued show cause notice as to why Rs.2.50 crore should not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the income of assessee. The assessing officer, in para-4 of his order recorded that

Bhola Prasad Yadav, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 288/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

during the demonetization period, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') treated the total cash deposits during the period of demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Further, as the assessee had disclosed business ... submitted that the issue related to cash deposits and the deposits in the bank account of the assessee which were treated as unexplained money and business income. The assessment order was ex parte and the Ld. AR requested that the issue may be remanded

Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan, Motihari vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 287/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

submissions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. 'AO') treated the cash deposits amounting to ₹2,23,98,300/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, in absence of any documents/submissions, the interest income

Bhavinbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, Surat vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 874/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee is 2. with regard to challenging the order Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. In this regard the 2 Bhavinbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, Mumbai. assessee relied upon his written submissions which are reproduced herein below

Mohan Lal Bhapta, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward Rampur, Rampur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

ground raised by the assessee reads as under: “That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs.11,24,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The addition so made and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, and against the facts ... implying that the earlier withdrawals had been utilized. 4.2 The AO held that the explanation lacked corroboration and treated the deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A, taxed u/s 115BBE, and initiated penalty u/s 271AAC(1). 3 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred