← 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

Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1364/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

individual and engaged in the business of money transfer having subjected to addition u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.8,96,126,260/- for unexplained money. There are huge cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account held with Bank of Maharashtra. Information was called from the bank u/s.133 ... justice, the addition made U/s 69A is bad in law. Section 69A is a deeming fiction which provides for computing deemed income which is unexplained money. 23.It is submitted that given the fresh opportunity the appellant can explain the source of money deposited. She is carrying business only on commission

Krish Wines, Jalgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jalgaon

ITA 2098/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

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

circumstances of the case and in law lower authorities have erred in making an addition of Rs.15,00,283/- u/s 69A- Unexplained Money, being cash deposited in the bank during demonetization period by disregarding the appellant's contention. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. 4. On the facts

Riteshh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 826/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 250Section 69A

order that assessment was being passed u/s 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- in respect of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) restored the issue to the file of Ld. AO with

Sk. Rezzak, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Suri

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 586/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 69A

made by the AO in respect of cash deposited during demonetization period as unexplained money. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the running a cable network and cloth business. The assessee e-filed the return of income declaring total income ... assessee was not authorized to do business in SBN. Finally, the AO had made an addition of Rs. 8,56,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2016. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) rather enhanced the assessment by directing

Pichaimani Gunasundari, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Nc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2333/CHNY/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Pichaimani Gunasundari, The Ito, No.65, Saratha Flats, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1), Ganapathi Nagar, Tambaram. 4Th Street, Urapakkam, Kancheepuram-603 210. [Pan: Cqgpg 6518 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

Delhi erred in confirming the assessment of Rs. 5,40,000/-being the cash deposits made into the bank account of the appellant as unexplained money in terms of Section 69A of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 11. The NFAC

Vinod Jain, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 505/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

Show Cause notice was issued on 12/08/2020. After considering the documents, the AO had proposed to treat the cash seized on 12/08/2020 as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO not accepted the explanations and added the cash seized at Rs. 26,59,685/- as unexplained money

Sunil Bohra, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the

ITA 5126/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr.AR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Niru Dhiren Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4294/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Niru Dhiren Shah Tax, Central Circle – 8(2) बनाम 3Rd Floor, Flat No. 35, Jolly Room No. 658, 6Th Floor, Maker Apartment, No. 3 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 119, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Churchgate, Mumbai –400020, Mumbai – 400 005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanps7632R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

Rs.6,55,24,709/- and the sale price of Rs.3,38,59,224/-) representing unaccounted cash receipts by the assessee was added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 4. During the appeal proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), it was contended that

Nawal Singh, Dhani Chittersan Bhorkalan Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Office of the Income Tax Ward Gurgaon

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

ITA 5509/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Saket Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

account during the Financial Year 2011-12. The AO, therefore, treated the cash deposits in assessee’s bank account of Rs. 15.40 lakhs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, as he has no alternative to framed the assessment to the best of his judgment based on the material

Anil Paul, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(8) New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 5502/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

respect of cash payment of credit card bills, without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable to such payments and that no unexplained money was found in possession of the appellant. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Megha Garg, Delhi

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

ITA 3488/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Income Tax Officer, Megha Garg, 1707 E-2 Block Civic Centre, 160 Saraswati Vihar Vaishali, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Aecpg7098C Appellant Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69A

against the Hon'ble high court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions

Anu Gupta, Rohini, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 34(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3106/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3106/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Anu Gupta, 62 A, Naharpur, Sector-7, Rohini, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110085 Pan: Auupg-3868-N बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 34(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18.11.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 98 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 98 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A

hand available with the assessee. Since, no supporting documents were furnished by the assessee, the AO made addition of the entire amount as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by thesaid assessment order dated 30.12.2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office vs. Ritu Bala, Faridabda

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3621/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Ritu Bala, Vs. Faridabad 4237 Indra Prashtha Colony, Haryana Faridabad – 121 001 Haryana Pan :Bdhpb1495B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 69C

discussed above and further in the absence of any evidence of assessee maintaining books of accounts, the above mentioned transactions are seen to be unexplained money. 11 ITA No. 3621/Del.2024 The appellant had submitted her detailed response and also filed the requisite documents, bank statements, balance sheet, P&L account

Nikita Gupta, Alirajpur vs. ITO-2, Ratlam

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

ITA 255/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshinikita Gupta, Income Tax Officer-2, C/O Lb Gold, Ratlam Csa Marg, Vs. Alirajpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpg0456K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am:

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

perused the record placed before us. We notice that the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- has been made by the Ld. A.O for unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act for the cash deposited during the demonetization period. We note that the assessee deals in gold ornament business on small

Partha Roy, West Bengal vs. ITO, Ward - 50(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per direction given above

ITA 2700/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyshri Rakesh Mishra & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Partha Roy…………..………….…….………………….……….……….……Appellant 923/1, Ashok Nagar, Barasat, W.B-743232. [Pan: Awepr4888F] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Asim Dey, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 24, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee failed to give any response. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the assessment proceedings by treating a sum of Rs.1,21,79,229/- as unexplained money u/s 69A by passing an order u/s 144 of the Act. Partha Roy 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal ... completed the assessment proceedings u/s 144 of the Act by treating the entire credits/deposits appearing in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained money. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written submission, however the assessee did not produce any details or 2 Partha Roy evidences

G. Senthilkumar, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2130/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2130/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri G. Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, A24, Kannan Nagar, Vs. Che-W-192(16), 5Th Cross, Chennai Thanjavur – 613 007. Pan: Axyps 4086R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Gokularaman, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Gokularaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs.4,56,48,732/- on account of cash deposits made during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available ... assessee stating that the credits in the bank account stood improperly explained and accordingly, proceeded to add Rs.4,56,48,732/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act for want of evidence from the side of assessee. 4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule

Sri Vinayaga Builders and Homes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2104/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

unexplained investment taking note of the purchase value of immovable property and also added a sum of ₹16.20 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money, since no evidence was filed including the books of accounts of the assessee were for verification. In this regard, it is noted that notice

Sri Vinayaga Builders and Homes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Coporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2103/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

unexplained investment taking note of the purchase value of immovable property and also added a sum of ₹16.20 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money, since no evidence was filed including the books of accounts of the assessee were for verification. In this regard, it is noted that notice

Subramanian, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Erode

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

ITA 1823/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1823/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subramanian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 78, Co-Operative Colony, Vilankurichi, Ward 1(4), Coimbatore 641 035. Erode. [Pan:Cerps9236R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha M. Mullamudi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Samatha M. Mullamudi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

give any explanation about the nature and source of total cash credits of ₹.6,62,229/-, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made ... nature and source of total cash credit of ₹.6,62,229/- and added the same under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same by recording his reasons vide para 7 of the impugned order. Further, it is noted at page

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4993/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

confirmed the addition under section 69A of the IT Act. Section 69A of the act is a deeming provision which titles as “Unexplained money". For the sake of convenience section 69A of the act is reproduced below :- “Unexplained money, etc. [69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found ... income of the assessee for such financial year.]” 22. It is submitted that during the course of search of SCIPL, no unexplained money was found from the premises of the assessee. In order to invoke section 69A the basic requirement is that unaccounted money ought to be seized from