← 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

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 791/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No. 50/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana Acit, Cc 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aczpg4735H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

made by the ld. AO assessing the total income at ₹1,40,87,000/- by making addition of Rs.1,40,87,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act by passing the order u/s 144 of the Act dated 29.03.2022, which was affirmed ... available on record, we find that the ld. AO has assessed the income u/s 69A of the Act at ₹1,40,87,000/- as unexplained money which is according to the ld. AO was the cash seized during the course of search whereas the ld. AO, in assessment framed

Dipika Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(2), Now Ward 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 50(2) Dipika Singh Now Word 50(1), Bhatendra East Raypara Uttarpan, Manicktala Civic Rajarhat, Barasat, Vs. Centre, Kolkata-700067, Kolkata-700135, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bllps4355P Assessee By : S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Anirban Gupta, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 145(3)Section 69A

made by the ld. AO on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. The assessee has also challenged the estimation of profit at the rate of 3.68% on the undisclosed sales of ₹60,43,953/- thereby making an addition ... There was no compliance by the assessee and accordingly, the ld. AO made an addition of ₹20,63,763/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, after allowing the deduction of cash in hand as per cash book of ₹1,36,587/-. The ld. AO also noted that during

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

proof on closely held companies for funds received from shareholders, and taxation of share premium in excess of fair market value. • Taxation of unexplained money, credits, investments, or expenditures at 30%, irrespective of income slab.” (emphasis supplied) 9.2 From the above memo it is evident that introduction of section ... unaccounted monies. It is evident that the provision was not meant to disturb genuine, bona fide business transactions but to curb tax abuse through unexplained money inflows. In the instant case, neither the AO nor the Id.CIT(A) have held or alleged that unaccounted money has been introduced

Iqbal Maenuddin Shaikh, Mumbbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 5584/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriIqbal Maennuddin ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri Veerabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

details to interfere with the findings given by the A.O. in the assessment order. Therefore, addition of Rs.59,86,710/- made u/s. 60A as unexplained money is hereby sustained and all the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders ... assessee’s bank account. In the absence of satisfactory explanation and supporting documentary evidence, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), despite issuing multiple notices, did not receive any compliance from the assessee and accordingly sustained the addition

Prajesh Maneklal Rupareliya, Mumbai vs. 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 6608/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 69A

amount of Rs. 16,96,271/- used for purchase of shares of Eicher Motors Ltd. should not be treated as unexplained money. The assessing officer recorded that no information or reply was furnished by assessee. The assessing officer treated Rs. 16,96,271/- as unexplained money and added under section

Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

Appeals) has erred in. confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.3,81,645/- on account of treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. Kishan Baranwal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 214/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.214/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Shri Kishan Baranwal Circle – 2(1)(1), 217, 2Nd Floor, Aryaman Arcade, Surat Bhagal, Surat- 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bjkpb0758E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.2,17,13,915/- u/s.69A of the Act on account of unexplained money ignoring the fact that the assessee is failed to prove the identity of the persons to whom assessee had made sales and also failed to prove ... maintained and placing reliance on these findings, the AO has concluded that the stock register of the assessee is manipulated for adjusting unexplained money of the assessee and on the basis of these facts and couples with the analysis as per Benford’s Law rejected the book result

Leo Bhaginath, Malaparamba, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 626/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Bhagianath .......... Appellant 34/290, Malaparamba, Kozhikode 673009 [Pan: Adtpl7403Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Anand Kumar, V.K, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 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 09.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income As An Advocate. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017- 18 Was Filed On 21.10.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 5,50,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 04.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 42,72,800/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Credits In The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar, V.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 44A

While doing so, the AO brought to tax the credits in the bank 2 Leo Bhagianath account of Rs. 36,04,500/- as unexplained money of the appellant. He also brought to tax the interest on bank deposit of Rs. 1,18,300/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed ... Therefore, the CIT(A), held that only the balance amount of Rs. 25,65,500/- should be brought to tax as unexplained money of the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The appellant had filed an application seeking admission

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar Garg, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT
Section 132(4)Section 250Section 69A

erred in sustaining only Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- made u/s 69A on account of unexplained money by incorrectly treating total amount as Rs. 3,37,470/- (in 2 Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota. thousands) instead ... erred in sustaining only Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- made u/s 69A on account of unexplained money by treating total amount as Rs. 3,37,470/- instead of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- by accepting unsubstantiated submission of the assessee that

Anand Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

ITA 1378/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Payal Jhorar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234ASection 24Section 250Section 69A

assessed as under:- S. Description Amount (in Rs.) No. 1. Income as returned in ITR filed u/s 139(4) 4,74,820/- 2. Add: Unexplained money u/s 69A as discussed in para 2,49,89,296/- 4.1 above 3. Add: Disallowance u/s 24(b) of the IT Act as discussed

Sarfaraz Salim Kacchi, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1935/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 147Section 249(4)Section 250(6)Section 69

vide order dated 21.03.2022 on account of non-compliance by the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings making addition for unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act at Rs.28,26,400/- which was found to be invested in Renukamata Multi State Urban Coop. Credit Society Ltd. Though the assessee preferred

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

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

ITA 1127/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Income tax (Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 88,74,435/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits ... Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 1,81,60,412/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

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

ITA 1126/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Income tax (Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 88,74,435/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits ... Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 1,81,60,412/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

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

ITA 1125/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Income tax (Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 88,74,435/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits ... Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 1,81,60,412/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

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

ITA 1124/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Income tax (Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 88,74,435/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits ... Appeals), NFAC has not justified in upholding the Assessing Officers finding on additions made of Rs 1,81,60,412/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act 1961 without considering factual and legal position of law. As the issues are not decided on merits

Arulappan Soosai, Niligris vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ooty

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

ITA 2169/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2169/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. Arulappan Soosai Arulappan, The Ito, 12, Thiashola Estate, Thiashola Post, Ward-1, Kundha Taluk, The Nilgiris-643 219. Ooty.

Section 44ASection 69A

Ground No.II as referred supra – Addition under Section 69A of Rs.5,35,000/-: This issue relates to the addition of Rs.5,35,000/- as unexplained money. The assessee contends that the authorities below failed to consider cash withdrawals of Rs.2,97,500/- during the year and the past savings

Arif Shaikh, Thane vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Thane

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

ITA 5469/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

case are that the assessee's case was reopened vide issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 04/04/2022. The assessment was completed with addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act amount to Rs.39,12,500/-, undisclosed contractual receipt – Rs.3,63,510/-, unexplained money amount to Rs.46

DCIT, I.T.O. Delhi vs. Rathi Steel and Power Limited, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2720/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2720/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Chauhan Market, Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Madanpur Khadar, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate Near Shopping Complex, New Delhi Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76 Pan: Aaacr1435K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Revenue For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 68

order to prove that the apparent is not real, i.e. the cash sale receipts are not genuine sales of the assessee but its unexplained money then it is obligatory for the Ld. AD to bring on record material evidences to prove the same, since mere suspicions will not fulfil

Vimalkumar Prakashchandra Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1651/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

addition of Rs.2,47,00,000/- made by A.O. towards the share capital introduced in the partnership firm of M/s. Vrundavan Corporation as unexplained money is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CITIA) has grievously erred in law and or on facts ... addition of Rs.2.47,00,000/- made by A.Ο. towards the share capital introduced in the partnership firm of M/s. Vrundavan Corporation as unexplained money 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the ld. CIT(A), ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs.2

Purna Chander Ragam, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above observations

ITA 984/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

held the cash payments of Rs. 7,77,000/- made by the assessee towards credit card purchases as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 5 Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before