← 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

Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 1818/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1818/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-15 Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. No.W 181/6A, Gajanana Housing Society, Dound Baramati, Pune- 413801. Pan : Arwpm4183H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manishkumar Sinha Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay Of 180 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manishkumar Sinha
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

which there was no compliance. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings by bringing to tax the cash credits of Rs.3,61,80,100/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed

Kovida Designs, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 997/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A_ T. Ram PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69A

cash deposits amounting to Rs. 21,00,000/-, which were duly declared and included as part of sales/gross receipts, has been erroneously treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The said addition is bad in law and contrary to facts. 3. The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that once ... year, including Rs.21 lakhs deposited during the demonetization period. Being unsatisfied with the explanation of source/nature, the Ld. AO treated Rs.21 lakhs as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and made a separate addition. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section

M/S. 45 Bus Route Owner Association, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 272/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 77,01,650/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged unexplained money by invoking the provision of sec. 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds ... could not file any documentary evidence in support of its contention; hence, the Ld. AO treated the cash amount of ₹77,01,650/- as unexplained money and added back the same to the total income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee

Mohammad Isha, Varanasi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Varanasi

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

ITA 34/VNS/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Isha V. The Income Tax Officer B-18/52, Rewri Talab Ward 2(2) Varanasi (U.P) Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aaqpi6457F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 271ASection 69A

erred in law as well as on facts in adding the entire deposits in the bank accounts during the year under consideration as unexplained money liable for taxation under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. 5 BECAUSE the entire deposits in the bank accounts maintained ... been taken by the authorities below by taxing the entire deposits in the bank accounts maintained by him, by alleging the said deposits as unexplained money liable for taxation under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the overall profit derived by the appellant during the year

Prakash Gupta, Gopalganj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

location and lack of access to tax professional and the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed despite

Globus Housing, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

Income as per ITR filed u/s 148 was Rs.93,04,130/-. An Addition of Rs.87,20,000/- was made on account of (1) unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act (2) on account of undisclosed income of Rs.3,53,160/- aggregating to Rs.90,73,160/-. 2.2 That the assessee

Ashok Amarnath Agrawal, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1078/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 271ASection 68

STCG of Rs.1,47,15,585/- claimed by the assessee from sale of the stock of M/s. Kushal Tradeline Ltd to be taxed as unexplained money u/s 69A at the rates prescribed u/s 115BBE of the Act. Following this, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271AAC

Ashok Amarnath Agrawal, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1077/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 271ASection 68

STCG of Rs.1,47,15,585/- claimed by the assessee from sale of the stock of M/s. Kushal Tradeline Ltd to be taxed as unexplained money u/s 69A at the rates prescribed u/s 115BBE of the Act. Following this, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271AAC

Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul, Dhule vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1253/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Officer (AO) thereafter carried out the proceedings and in the Best Judgment Assessment framed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act concluded by making addition for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.28,73,000/-. Assessed income at Rs.31,49,373/-. 7. Aggrieved with the addition made by ld. AO assessee

Narendar Aale, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.954/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Narendar Aale, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 11(5), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Amxpa3425A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Villa Mouni Mani Kumar, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Dated 07.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2021-22 Was Filed On 23.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,00,830/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 22.12.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”)

For Appellant: Shri Villa Mouni Mani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Officer made addition on account of cash investment in chit and cash investment in immovable property to the tune of Rs.26,24,142/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer

Bharat Kumar Jain Premchand, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 741/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.741/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2022-23) Shri Bharat Kumar Jain Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Premchand, Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aqvpp1066C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 21.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2022-23 On 30.07.2022 Declaring Income Of Rs.3,86,750/-. The Telangana State Police Seized Cash Of Rs.7,35,000/- From The Assessee After Following

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 250(6)

procedure. The Assessing Officer on consideration of explanation filed in response to the notice issued brought to tax the seized cash as unexplained money of the assessee, accordingly assed the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, an appeal was filed before

Srinivas Arra, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1184/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1184/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivas Arra, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aespa4907Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 08.11.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,80,730/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 27.09.2021 Passed U/S.147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period of Rs.25,03,554/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee

Mandavilli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1136/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1136/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Shri Mandavilli Veera Venkata Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Satyanarayana, Hyderabad. Pan: Aflpm8942M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2016-17 Was Filed On 30.03.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.20,85,590/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

income at Rs.25,85,590/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposited in the bank account Rs.5,0,000/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer

Salahuddin Mohammed, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1047/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1047/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Salahuddin Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Adgpm5833N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha K राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 10.08.2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 231 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit

For Appellant: CA Hemalatha KFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

case. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. A.O has erred in concluding INR 1,08,97,655 /- as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and adding the same under the head ‘Income from other Sources’. Page

Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 196/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 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)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 80,53,411/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that if the appellant substantiates later, saying that ... disclosed in the book of account of the assessee, therefore, the cash deposited in the said bank accounts would fall within the meaning of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Also, it was observed by him that though the assessee had claimed that

Satish Khanna, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

vide order dated 28.03.2022, determining the total income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.3,76,45,045/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. :-5-: ITA. No.:415 /Chny/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Girish Karamshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1), Mumbai

ITA 4553/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 68Section 69A

held to unexplained. Accordingly, the cash deposited in bank at Rs. 1,24,41,000/-during the demonetization period is held to be the Unexplained Money u/s. 69A of the Act and is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC of the Act are initiated ... 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

Bharti Ramchandani, India vs. Income Tax Officer 34(1)(1), India

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4394/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bharti Ramchandani Ito - 34(1)(1), Mumbai B 2401, Oberoi Esquire, Vs 230D, Kautilya Bhavan, Mohan Gokhale Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon East S.O., Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400063. [Pan: Anppr0395D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Jigar Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution 04.07.2025 Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254(1)Section 69A

income tax return nor offered income from her other activities i.e. business activities or otherwise. The assessing officer treated the cash deposit as unexplained money by taking view that she has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding source of such cash deposit. The assessing officer added

Rajesh Bubna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Income Tax Act, the burden of proof lies on the Rajesh Bubna vs. ACIT AO to establish the source of alleged unexplained money. The AO must provide evidence to justify claims of undisclosed income, as outlined by Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 115BBE does not apply

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Navinchandra Veljibhai Shahq, Jamnagar

In the result, the appellant's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 401/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.401/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Income Tax Officer, Wd – Vs. Navinchandra Veljibhai Shah 1(3), Income Tax Department, Ramesh Stores Samkrit Building, Room No. 209, Aayakar Bhavan, Street No. 11, Kamdar Colony Jamnagar – 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Basps6529R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 Dates Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act by assessing total income at Rs. 1,65,03,900/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.The appellant is in appeal against the said order. ITA No. 401/RJT/2024 A.Y.2018-19 ITO v. Navinchandra Veljibhai Shah 4. That