← 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

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 441/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

total income at Rs.50,51,750/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.50,51,750/- u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 440/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

total income at Rs.50,51,750/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.50,51,750/- u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

total income at Rs.50,51,750/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.50,51,750/- u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1093/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

total income at Rs.50,51,750/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.50,51,750/- u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1092/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

total income at Rs.50,51,750/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.50,51,750/- u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1089/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

total income at Rs.50,51,750/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.50,51,750/- u/s 69A of the IT Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action

Navdurga Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 219/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

during the subject year in the bank account of 3 ITA 218 and 219/Hyd/2025 Navadurga Transport Company vs. ITO the assessee firm as its unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and assessed its income at the said amount. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before

Navdurga Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 218/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

during the subject year in the bank account of 3 ITA 218 and 219/Hyd/2025 Navadurga Transport Company vs. ITO the assessee firm as its unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and assessed its income at the said amount. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before

DCIT, Circle1(1), Kolkata vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1724/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

complete year cash book, names, addresses and telephone numbers of person to whom cash sales were made, such sales could not be considered as unexplained money and that too when profit derived from those sales proceeds was already taxed as part of sales”. Further, in the case of ACIT

M/S. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1193/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

complete year cash book, names, addresses and telephone numbers of person to whom cash sales were made, such sales could not be considered as unexplained money and that too when profit derived from those sales proceeds was already taxed as part of sales”. Further, in the case of ACIT

Sree Mahadeshwara Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 537/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 69A

made an assessment u/s. 144 of the Act in which the entire cash deposits made into the bank account has been treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said ex-parte order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) but the assessee

Theeta Chowdayya Nagarathna, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2083/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Kiran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

from her cousin and accordingly concluded the assessment by treating the entire cash deposit during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.14,32,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and assessed on a total income of Rs.17,84,100/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed ... upon her under the law, the provisions of section 69A of the Act are squarely attracted and the said amount is rightly treated as unexplained money. 6. Again, aggrieved by the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Before

Anand Ashok Chandavarkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3808/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankaranand Ashok Chandavarkar V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – C/O S.S. Tumkar, 202, Shreeji बनाम 31(1)(1), Room No. 203, 2Nd Darshan Chsl, Hanuman Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Road, Ville Parle East, To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 057, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablpc0382R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh & Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

provisions of law and the same may be quashed and set aside. 4. Addition by treating the Cash Deposited in Bank Account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is unjustified- Rs.11,01,000/- i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action ... making addition of Rs 11,01,000/- under section 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposited in hank account as unexplained money without appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case in proper perspective. Hence, the addition of Rs. 11,01,000/- under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Tecxpert Software Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 3079/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,90,00,000/- on account of unexplained money received from M/s. MKD Construction Pvt. Ltd. u/s 69 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has taken accommodation entry

Robust Resorts & Hospitality LLP, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 4312/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2016-17 Robust Resorts & Hospitality Llp, Vs. Dcit, J-290, Second Floor, Saket, Central Circle-14, New Delhi – 110 017. New Delhi. Pan: Aarfr7213D

For Appellant: Shri Yudhisthir Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(x)Section 69C

jurisdiction. It comes up that the Ld. AO had made an addition of Rs.2,25,87,173/- u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained money on account of unaccounted expenditure during the year under consideration. In the show cause notice dated 17.03.2022 (copy of which is at Page8

Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sahil Jain, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

cover any discrepancy is concerned, the AO has not pointed out any unexplained credit in the books of account, any unexplained investment, any unexplained money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of section

Neeraj Sinha, HUF, Patna vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 114/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

114/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Neeraj Sinha, HUF 5. For that the Ld. A.O erred in not only treating the exempted income as unexplained money of the appellant though the appellant has all the relevant papers and documents to show that he has correctly claimed the income as income from ... appellate proceeding, the addition of ₹6,15,000/- made on account of I.T.A. No.: 114/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Neeraj Sinha, HUF unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and income from other sources made by the Ld. AO in the assessment order was confirmed and the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Deep Trading Co., Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 477/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 477/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Deep Trading Co., Room No. 228, First Floor, बनाम B 34-5503, Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, 22 Footi Road, Vs. Ludhiana Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aahfd6122B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)

Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 11,12,71,500/- made by the AO as unexplained money on account of unexplained cash Deposits in bank accounts as the assessee not furnished 477-Chd-2025 Deep Trading Co., Ludhiana reply evidence regarding

Shri Rushabhdev Swetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 136/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CITDR
Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

year 2012–13. In the absence of any compliance or reconciliation, the AO concluded that the entire amount of Rs. 75,41,227/- represented unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income ... appreciate the explanation tendered and proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte by treating the aggregate bank deposits of Rs. 75,41,227/- as unexplained money under section 69A. The copies of the assessee’s responses dated 12.09.2019 and 22.09.2019, as filed before the Assessing Officer, were placed

Nomula Narmada Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1397/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1397/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2020-2021) Smt. Nomula Narmada The Dcit, Vs. Reddy, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Pan Ablpn5320J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri R Kumaran, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri R Kumaran, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

fact that there is only bank payment made and no cash was involved and erred in treating the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. 3. The Ld. AO has erroneously arrived at a false conclusion that there is cash payment involved without any supporting material ... addition of Rs.9 lakhs while passing the assessment order u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] on account of unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act. The assessee challenged the said addition before the learned CIT(A). In response to the notice, the assessee sought adjournment