“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

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 3, Delhi

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

ITA 4644/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 03, Delhi

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

ITA 4643/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

Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

ITA 544/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.544/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani 11/12 Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Chamber Building,, Jaishree Talkies Road, Near Sardar Patel Bhavan, Junagadh. 362001, Bhoothnath Chambers, College Road, Junagadh 362001 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abupj1530B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 21/03/2024, U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 1

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

held that assessing officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 69A and treated the cash payment of Rs. 1,68,667/- as unexplained money, being the assessee's share of the unaccounted on-money paid towards the purchase of immovable property. Feeling aggrieved by the order

Brajmohan Vishnoi, Harda vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Harda

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

ITA 133/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshibrajmohan Vishnoi, Income Tax Officer , Baidi Handia, Ward-1 Vs. Harda Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aoppv4967G Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 22.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 69A

file of jurisdictional A.O for denovo adjudication. Further the assessee is directed to place all relevant material evidence explaining the source of alleged unexplained money before the Ld. A.O for which reasonable opportunity shall be granted. Further the jurisdictional A.O after considering these details shall decide in accordance with

Primula Bhandari, Gangtok vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1394/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1394/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Primula Bhandari Vs Dcit, Circle-3(2), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, Kol-69. Pan No. :Ajvpb2150Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Smt. Parna Datta, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac Dated 06.05.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Noticed Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee & Accordingly Reopened The Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961.The Assessment Was Completed Under Sections 144/147, Determining The Total Income At ₹25,85,346/-, After Making An Addition Of ₹25,85,346/- Under Section 69A Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Money.

For Appellant: Smt. Parna Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69A

total income at ₹25,85,346/-, after making an addition of ₹25,85,346/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money. 2 Primula Bhandari 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. Hence, the assessee

Karunakaran Srinivasan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1995/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Dharshan Bothra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- into the bank account of the appellant as unexplained money u/s.69A in the hands of the appellant. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition u/s.69A ... HDFC bank. The action of the A.O is justified. Therefore, I have no reason to interfere with the addition of Rs.16,00,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the A.O.” 6. Aggrieved by the order

Thattil Mapranath Ouseph Ply, Rep. by Jaya Ply, Legal Heri, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1854/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

went wrong in failing to annual the order of assessment. 5. The AO erred in making the addition of Rs.25,98,550/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and the CIT(A) erred in failing to delete the same. 6. The Appellant having submitted the soured for the cash ... after due verification, accepted this explanation to the extent of Rs.26,40,250/-. The balance amount of Rs.25,98,550/- was treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 9. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that

Mathiyazhagan Vinoth Kumar, Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 1670/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

explained the cash deposit were made during the contract work he erred in upholding the addition of cash deposit of Rs.23,56,500/- as unexplained money. 6. The Appellant having declaring his income u/s 44AD of the Act, which statutory relieves the Appellant from maintaining books of accounts, adding

Mathiyazhagan Vinoth Kumar, Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 1669/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

Saifa Molla, Bishnupur vs. ITO, Ward 26(3), Kolkata

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

failed to explain the source of the cash deposits during the demonetization period, the Ld. AO treated the sum of ₹46,33,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

assessee had repaid in cash the loan to Shri G.N. Anbuchezhian to the tune of ₹.92,50,000/- and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act for the AY 2017-18. 6. Similarly, for the assessment year 2019-20, on an identical facts and circumstances ... explained. 6.3.4 The AO after rejecting the above submissions of the assessee proceeded to treat the amount(s) of loan repaid as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the assessee's total income for the respective assessment years. On examination of the grounds raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

Manohar, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 564/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.564/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manohar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Ward – 3, Ganapathichettikulam, Puducherry. Puducherry – 605 014. [Pan:Awmpm5480E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit For Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT for Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Accordingly, we note that the Assessing Officer completed the best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act vide order dated 29.03.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order

Mr.Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Sivagangai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Karaikudi

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

ITA 1955/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-3/12-H, Bungalow Oorani Street, Income Tax, Puduvayal, Karaikudi Taluk, Circle 1, Sivagangai 630 108. Karaikudi. [Pan:Aajpw6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 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 By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 44ASection 69Section 69A

notes during the period of demonetization, the cash deposited during 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 to an extent of ₹.3,14,15,030/- is treated as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 3 I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/25 ... addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned, in which the assessee

Hanumanthappa Rajappa Mohan, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chitradurga

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

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

agricultural income. As the assessee has deposited cash into the bank account, the ld. AO found that a sum of Rs.11,52,165 is unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee stated that it has a closing cash balance as on 31.3.2016 of Rs.32 ... Therefore he made an addition of the difference between Rs.27,34,800 and Rs.15,82,630 amounting to Rs.11,52,165 as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. On careful consideration of the explanation, I find that the original query of the AO was with respect to the deposit

Syed Irfan Gulab Jan Pasha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1095/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

responded to this notice also. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the assessee proposed to treat the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Even for this notice also, the assessee had not responded and therefore the AO had treated the cash deposits made into ... bank accounts as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee made an allegation that the AO had not issued any such notice u/s. 148 on 30/03/2019 and therefore the order passed

Syed Irfan Gulab Jan Pasha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1094/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

The Vishwas Co Op Credit Society Limited, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 2367/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 194ASection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

simply the SB notes looses to be a legal tender, it does not mean that the amount collected by the appellant society would become unexplained money of the society. It is also not the case of the AO that the assessee had indulged in money exchanging activity from the public ... demonetized notes after 8.11.2016 in violation of the notifications issued by RBI. Accordingly, he has taken the view that the above said amounts represents unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked

Dinesh Kumar Singhania, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1151/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of treating the cash in hand of ₹21,92,184/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal

Keshram, Village- Patwari vs. The ITO Ward- 5(2)(1), G Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2158/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2158/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Keshram Through Legal Heir Shri Sunder Singh, Village Patwari Bisrakh, Gatam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203207 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Bqgpk-1567-D बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(2)(1), Gatam Buddha Nagar, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Uttar Pradesh 201303 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/07/2025 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 10.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 53 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

compliance by the assessee. Consequently, the AO framed assessment u/s 144 of the Act, treating total sum of Rs.72,21,995/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), but remained unsuccessful. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Shri Om Prakash, representing