← 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

Veeresh Wali, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2413/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

Ravi respectively. Therefore, according to the assessee, the impugned cash deposits were duly explained as redeposit of earlier withdrawals and did not represent unexplained money. 7. The AO observed that the issue relating to cash deposits had already been examined during the proceedings pursuant to the revision under section ... explanation offered by the assessee and treated the cash deposits of ₹8,71,500/- . Page 5 of 11 made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The said amount was brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act and added to the total

Karnataka Ginger Trading Company, Kushalnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Medikeri

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2235/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250Section 69A

that once the deposits are duly recorded in the books and represent business receipts from a known party, the same cannot be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance on the following judicial precedents in this regard: (a) Deputy Commissioner of Income

Bhawarlal S Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2138/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra BR, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

liable to be considered as income from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, the AO treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 6,58,27,954/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal ... extracts have also been produced to establish the genuineness of the purchases. This clearly demonstrates that the cash deposits were business receipts and not unexplained money. 6.5 To buttress his argument the appellant assessee places reliance on judicial precedents wherein it has been held that when sales are accepted

Shankar Alwar, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 8940/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadish

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

explanation or supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of ITA No.8940/M/2025 & SA No.7/M/2026 Shankar Alwar Rs.12,89,09,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred ... view of these facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and accordingly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that

Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 472/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 13Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Rs.16,52,940/- made in his bank account during the demonetization period, thus, treated the entire amount as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

cash deposits, therefore, the A.O held the entire amount as having Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.459/VIZ/2025 Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, Medak

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

ITA 1821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Hyd/2026 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant In Appeal) (Respondent/Cross Objector) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sudarshan, Ca Shri Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sv Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 19.08.2025, Co No.01/Hyd/2026 Ito (It)-1, Hyd Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni

For Appellant: Shri Sudarshan, CAFor Respondent: Shri SV Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

under Section 144 of the Act, wherein besides treating the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs. 96.30 lacs (supra) as the assessee’s unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, he made an addition of the interest income of Rs.48,927/- received on the said bank account ... there could be no justification in treating the subject cash deposits made during the year as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Also, it was submitted by him that the assessee during the subject year was a non-resident Indian

Pedaveeti Swathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1785/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1785/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Pedaveeti Swathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Fugps2126J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/02/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

income. 10. The addition of 63,74,000/- u/s 69A is erroneous, as the deposits are duly explained and not in the nature of unexplained money. The AO erred in applying Section 69A read with Section 115BBE mechanically without establishing ownership or unexplained nature of the amount. 11. The faceless ... forth with any explanation regarding the source of the subject cash deposits, therefore, the same were held as having been sourced out of her unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 5 Pedaveeti Swathi vs. ITO 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Parvathaneni Praveen, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiao.4Tt.A /Ita.No.1271/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

confirming the addition made by the Assessing officer towards Cash deposits made in the bank ITA.No.1271/Hyd./2025 account of Rs.25,29,300/- as unexplained money u/s 694A, without appreciating the fact that these were made out of the agricultural income of the appellant's wife. 5. The Learned ... cash deposits into bank account totalling to Rs.25,29,300/- was proposed to be added back to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice u/s 1448(1)(xii)(b) of the IT Act was issued

Late Abdullah Abdulmajeed, Rep. by L/H, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Rs.4,14,52,028/- had been made. A show cause notice dated 20.03.2024 was therefore issued proposing to treat the entire cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A. 7. In response, the legal heir again sought dropping of the proceedings and asserted that the deposits pertained to the partnership firm

Kalavathy Ganesan, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, ground of appeal Nos

ITA 3231/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri N. Madan Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 24.02.2026
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.25,56,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that source for the cash deposit was explained out of opening balance of Rs.37 ... being the cash deposits made in the bank accounts in specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetization period treating as unexplained money, rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the said cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals made from the partnership firm namely, M/s R. K & Sons of which

Nadarajan Kalyani, Tiruchengode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Therefore, the AO disbelieved the assessee’s claim of the nature & source of ₹22,48,834/- and made an addition of the same as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Nadarajan Kalyani ... selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act, by adding cash on hand as on 31.03.2016 as unexplained money u/s.69A of Act vide order of AO dated 10.12.2018 which was set aside back to the Income Tax Authorities/AO for fresh adjudication. 8. Accordingly, during

Ramakkonar Balakrishnan, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 2006/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: 21.01.2026
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

during the demonetization period. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2019 after making addition of Rs.1,01,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by arriving total assessed income of Rs.4,13,130/-. 3. The Ld.PCIT set aside the order u/s.143

Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Madurai vs. ACIT (Central Circle) -1, Mudarai, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1728/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Meenakshi Kovil Street, Income Tax, Sri Meenakshi Complex, 1St Floor, Central Circle 1, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Akppv0081K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. On Examination Of The Record, It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed This Appeal On 14.06.2025 & After Scrutiny, The Registry, Itat Chennai Benches Issued Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

page 12 & 13, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹.2,94,00,000/-, inter alia, making addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Act at ₹.2,74,19,095/- and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.02.2024. Against ... already assessed protectively u/s 69A of the Act was excluded. The remaining Rs.2,74,19,095/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, and added to the assessee's total income for A.Y. 2022- 23. The AO after making the above additions completed the assessment

Omsinh Jograjsinh Rajpurohit, Himatnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 906/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Tr Senthil Kumaromsinh Jograjsinh Rajpurohit, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-53 Hariom Nagar, Ward-1, Deai Road, Himatnagar. Near Jalaram Temple, Himmatnagar-383240. [Pan : Aqvpr0743G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 69A

dismissed the appeal ex parte. We find that the assessee remained compliant and failed to submit any details or supporting evidence in respect of unexplained money even before the Assessing Officer. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity

Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, Gandhinagar, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar, Udyog Bhavan

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

ITA 1908/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Hardav Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 276CSection 69A

Santosh Sharma (supra) and Raghubir Singh v. ITO (supra), cash deposits derived from agricultural income should not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A.” 3. The assessee did not file return of income u/s. 139(1)/139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that ... amount of Rs. 1,03,153/- was credited by cheques. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13,04,653/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution

Sridharan Shanmugam, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C.Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144(7)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 69Section 69A

only issue raised by the assessee is that the AO has erred in making an addition of cash deposit u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money which was confirmed by the DRP by various grounds in his appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case emanating from the records ... from Mr. Sevugon quoting his PAN along with bank transfer details. However, the AO has made addition u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money to the tune of Rs.24,20,000/- in the assessment order. The CIT(A) also confirmed the same. On perusal of records submitted by the assessee

Stephan Babu Chitra, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 3277/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3277/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ms. Stephan Babu Chitra, The Income Tax Officer, 1/148, Sandhaiveli, Vs. Ward 1, Mannthai Kuthalam, Kumbakonam. Nagapattinam – 612 203. Pan: Bogpc 1632F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 03.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CIT
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

since the assessee had not produced any details with regard to cash deposits made in her bank account, the AO added the same as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, which was further confirmed by the FAA. Since the assessee had not filed any details before the lower

Income Tax Officer, Krishnagiri vs. Manoharan Ramesh, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2798/CHNY/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2798/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the nature and source of deposits and withdrawals, and treated the total deposits of 2,51,83,611/- as unexplained money under section 69A, taxing the same under section 115BBE. Manoharan Ramesh :- 3 -: In grounds 3 and 4, the assessee contends that the deposits ... also relied on judicial precedents supporting the principle that when an agent receives money on behalf of principals, such amounts cannot be taxed as unexplained money in the agent’s hands. On careful consideration, it is noted that while the assessee’s reliance on the cited case law is legally

Samar Exports, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Madurai

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

ITA 2355/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

Revenue. 8. The cash deposit of SBNs during the demonetisation period of Rs.55,26,808/- has been added u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained money. For invoking section 68 of the Act, the primary condition is that there must be a credit in the books of the assessee for which