“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

Bina Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 1243/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115Section 147Section 234Section 69A

case in making the addition of Rs.74,52,300/- u/s 69A on account of alleged cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money, also erred in not considering the material available on record in their true perspective and sense and the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming ... source of cash deposits to her bank account during the year under consideration and he made addition of Rs.74,52,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money and addition of Rs.17,175/- on account of interest income treating it as ‘Income from other sources’’. In first appeal, the ld.CIT

Bhupinder Singh Sidhu(HUF), Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1024/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1024/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu Huf, The Ito, बनाम House No. 1114, Sector 69, Ward 4(1) Mohali Chandigarh Vs. Punjab160069 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaghb9562C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. M.R. Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. Cit Dr, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 4.7.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. CIT DR, Sr.DR

Section 143

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Shobharam Tulshiram Prajapat, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2128/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

individual and assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 concluded on 30.03.2022 u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act after making addition of Rs.42,29,410/- for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and the same was filed on 12.04.2022 and apart from others assessee has also

Narayana Singh Chaya Kumari, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 415/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Narayana Singh Chaya Kumari, Vs. Ito, #34, 8Th Cross, Saraswathipuram, Ward – 6(2)(2), Bangalore – 560 096. Bangalore. Pan : Ajxpk 5639 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Likith Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Likith Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

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

with Page 2 of 3 documentary evidence regarding deposit of cash. For want of documentary evidence amount of Rs.49,68,000/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and income was assessed at Rs.64,5,150/- and completed assessment on 30.12.2019. 3. Aggrieved from the above

Mahesh Narsing Choudhary, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 4769/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram JadhwaniFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as alleged Unexplained Money under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 2 Assessment Year 2019-2020 2.2. The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate

Bombay Tyres, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar and Shri Gopal Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

statement which included cash deposit of Rs. 3,18,43,590/-. He concluded that the said deposit of cash in the bank account is unexplained money u/s. 69A which was added to the income. He also computed notional profit at the rate of 8% of the total credits ... Tyres, the addition so made ex parte by passing an order u/s. 144 alleging the deposit of cash in the said bank account as unexplained money is uncalled for. Accordingly, the addition made by the ld. AO u/s. 69A in respect of deposit of cash in the Federal Bank

Hitesh Bhuralal Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The aforesaid submissions were supported by the affidavit of the Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Tejas SodhaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 144BSection 147Section 69Section 69A

115BBE of Income Tax Act.1961 of amount Rs.6,14,624/- on account of purchases of shares/securities Assessment Year 2019-2020 Ground II (a) – (g) Unexplained money u/s. 69A RWS 115BBE of Income Tax Act.1961 of amount Rs.1,40,85,853/-on account of credit transactions reflected in the bank account ... through Cash Deposit and Rs. 1,35,93,853/- through electronic fund transfer) proposed u/s.69A of the Income-tax Act on account of Unexplained Money. (c) Addition on account of sale of securities amounting to Rs. 3,83,981/ 7. All the above additions were confirmed

Akash Kapoor, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 80T

assessee/appellant herein seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action making section 69A addition of Rs. 9 lakhs in his hands as representing unexplained money; in assessment order dated 10.06.2021 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion reading as under: “Findings/Determination are as hereinafter- 4. I have perused

Omkar Singh, Noida vs. ITO Ward - 5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3574/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,32,46,215/- on account of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 2 OM Kar Vs. ITO 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued ... making an addition of Rs.1,32,46,215/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited during the year as unexplained money and AO by involving provisions of section115BBE of the Act, imposed 60% rate on the said addition. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, Assessee

Mandakini Dkhar, Lumshnong vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where also she could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied on the findings of the Ld. AO. It is also seen from para 18 at page 11 of the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) was considerably persuaded by the fact that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for eliciting response from the assessee, were not adequately responded to. It is also seen from the impugned order that attempts to verify the nature and extent of business from the VAT returns pertaining to the state of Megha

Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

appeal of appellant mere on his surmise and conjecture without considering the provisions of section 10(26) and addition of deposit made as unexplained Money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 That the CIT(A) was wrong in dismissing the appeal of the appellant which is prejudicial

Manish Punjabhai Odedra, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Porbandar, Gujarat

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

ITA 187/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

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

Appeals) and Income Tax Officer has erred in passing the order by confirming the addition of Rs. 61,00,086/- under Section 69A, as unexplained money. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by limitation by 178 days. The assessee has moved ... above documents and evidences and explanations of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 61,00,086/-, under section 69A of the Act, as unexplained money. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the assessing officer dated 06.12.2017, the assessee has preferred the appeal before Id.CIT

Haridas Mulji Rughani, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(3), Porbandar

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

ITA 686/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: 1. The reopening u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 69A

well as on facts for making an addition of cash deposits pertaining to Specified bank notes of Rs.9,80,000/- treating them as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same. 3. Facts ... parties and perused the material available on record. We note the addition was made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act. as an unexplained money which was subsequently confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). we note that before assessing Officer the assessee has submitted that the Assessee is dealing

Vasantham Silks, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Palakkad

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

ITA 582/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vasantham Silks .......... Appellant A H Plaza Agali Post, Mannarkkad Taluk Palakkad 678581 [Pan: Aakfv4469L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Palakkad .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri M.V. Venugopal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)

Therefore, the AO was constrained to pass exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act after making addition of cash deposits as unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution

Poonam Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

ITA 951/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in making addition of Rs 42,82,000 as unexplained money of the assessee The action of the Id CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case Relief may please

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 69ASection 69C

sources of such payment was not explained by the assessee. Thus the AO made an addition of Rs.15,75,677/- as unexplained money on a/c of Section 69C of the Act in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- "Hence, source of expenditure of Rs.15 ... basis of best judgement and made an addition of Rs. 15,75,677/- to the total income of the assessee under the head unexplained money on a/c of u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has concealed the income he is also liable to penalty

Vijay Singh, Salarpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Alwar

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

ITA 393/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 234BSection 69ASection 80C

assessment proceedings. Hence, the cash deposits of Rs.6.00 lacs remained unverified by the AO and he treated this amount of Rs.6.00 lacs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further the AO noted that the assessee had received an interest of Rs.30,911/- on FDRs. Since the assessee

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Kapil Thapar, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

ITA 246/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,04,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A on account of unexplained money as alleged money received over and above the sale value of property, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case that there was sufficient incriminating maerial

Rajasekar Dhanapal, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2299/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2299/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajasekar Dhanapal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5/45, D Block, Tnhb Quarters, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Kancheepuram 631 501 Tambaram. Currently Residing At 30 N Gould St Ste R Sheridan Wy 82801. [Pan: Ayrpr1457M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Found This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 354 Days. The Ld. Ar Submits There Was No Communication From First Appellate Authority About The Passing Of Impugned Order Nor Service Of The Order. The Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 144Section 69A

assessment under section 144 of the Act, inter alia, making addition under 3 I.T.A. No.2299/Chny/25 section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money in the absence of any evidence in support of the contention of the assessee, which is clear from para 2 to 5 of the assessment

Gokuldass Srinivasan, Udumalaipettai vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2230/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

cash deposit of Rs. 3,59,82,600/- not offered to tax as per reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessment proceeding is completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Priyadarshini Kasivisvanathen, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2224/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2224/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, C.A JKFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147

making an addition of Rs. 35,91,000/- on account of investment on immovable property and Rs. 64,13,500/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to file the return of income as well as the details called for. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before