← 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

Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Anand

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 997/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Mohammad Habeeb Uddin, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 8/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.08/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammad Habeeb Uddin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 11-2-323-Cross Bazaar, Ward-7(1), Ghat, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500004. Pan: Aaqph8462F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Sri Rajesh Vaishnav, CAFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 234ASection 271ASection 69A

documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in treating the deposit of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) as an unexplained money us 69A and taxing under the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act without considering the legal arguments and factual evidence submitted ... demonetisation period, i.e., on 08.11.2016, held the balance cash deposits of Rs. 88,17,000/- as having been sourced out of his unexplained money U/s 69A, of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) found no infirmity

Chinthalapudi Ramakrishna, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kothagudem

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

ITA 473/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

produced by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO treated the entire deposit of Rs.144,97,672/- in the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B on 16.03.2024 assessing total income of the assessee

Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Kadapa vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Kadapa

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.451/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 1, Kadapa. Kadapa. Pan: Aszpr1589G (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144

best judgment of assessment u/s.144 of the Act by brining the cash deposits made in the specified bank notes during the demonetization period as unexplained money of the assessee and also assessed income by estimating the income at 3% of the cash deposits of Rs.1

Srinivasarao Kolasani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.433/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Kolasani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Ahwpk6333P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Snsr Chinmai, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 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 26.10.2023 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 15.02.2019 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,76,020/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: SNSR Chinmai, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period of Rs.30,54,255/- 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

Sri Edupayala Vana Durga Bhavani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

ITA 399/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

assessment order and directed the A.O. to treat the entire amount of cash deposits as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 7. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section ... reason that the A.O. though in the assessment order had held the subject cash deposits of Rs. 2.48 crores (approx.) as the assessee’s unexplained money, but thereafter, despite admitting the said fact, had wrongly made the addition only to the extent of 8% of such cash deposits, which, thus

Mohd Azgar Ali, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 1283/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

determined the total income at Rs.60,04,600/- by making addition of Rs.60,04,600/- under Section 69A of the Act, as unexplained money towards cash deposited in the bank account. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before

Sesham Ramanaiah, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1062/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi Sheela, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

years. However, since no documentary evidence was filed, the Ld. AO ITA No.1062/Hyd/2025 6 treated the entire cash deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3.1 The Ld. AO further found that the assessee had jointly purchased two properties with Mr. Sesham China

Viswanathan Pappathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1620/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Viswanathan Pappathi Income Tax Officer No. 24C, Pudupet Road, Vs. Ward – 2, 4Th Street, Tirupattur, Vellore. Vellore – 635 601. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ceqpp-4595-H] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T.

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

Ward 2, Vellore. Thereafter, the assessment is completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, by making an addition of Rs.76,40,000/- u/s.69A as unexplained money u/.69A and a demand of Rs.65,02,900/- was raised. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same

Srinivasappa, Chikkaballapur vs. ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1118/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Narayanamurthy & Shri Suresh Rao, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 69A

bank accounts of the assessee, namely ₹7,40,000 in SBI and ₹6,70,000 in HDFC bank, and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed this addition holding that the assessee did not explain the source of cash deposits ... view that the basis of alleging unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is devoid of any merit, particularly in the circumstances when the AO has not referred the cash deposit in any particular

ACIT, Circle- 54(1), New Delhi vs. Nitin Garg, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4921/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

crores and Rs. 4 cores taken from Mr. Sunny Thakkar and Ms. Monal Thakkar respectively was bogus as it was assessee’s own unexplained money. However, the AO also admitted that these loans have been raised during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15 and, therefore, these loans

ACIT, Circle- 54(1), New Delhi vs. Nitin Garg, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4920/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

crores and Rs. 4 cores taken from Mr. Sunny Thakkar and Ms. Monal Thakkar respectively was bogus as it was assessee’s own unexplained money. However, the AO also admitted that these loans have been raised during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15 and, therefore, these loans

Sunrise Enterprise, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Rajkot

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

ITA 273/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.273/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sunrise Enterprise The Pr.Cit-1, Rajkot, बनाम 317, Auto Point Complex, Rajkot Svp Road, Near Lodhawad Police Vs. Chowki, Rajkot-360002 Pan : Aczfs1180N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

Rs.35,72,14,689/-, by making an addition u/s 69A of the I.T. Act of Rs.35,72,04,999/-, treating the cash withdrawal as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. 4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), exercised ... addition proposed vide the SCN dated 20.03.2025. In light of the above, amount to the tune of Rs. 42,20,21,094/- is treated unexplained money u/s 69A and added back to the total income of the assessee for AY 2018-19 Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) is initiated separately

Zaimur Rahman, East Champaran vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

deposits aggregating to Rs.62,25,000 in State Bank of India during the Financial Year 2014-15 corresponding to Assessment Year 2015-16 is unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner

Arvindbhai Ratilal Shah T L/H Kokilaben Arvindbhai Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3) (6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arvindbhai Ratilal Shah, T L/H Ito Ward 2(3)(6), Kokilaben Arvindbhai Shah, Income Tax Office, Room 405, C/O Sun Gems, 203 Syndicate Vs. Anavil Business Centre, Pal- House, Gujjar Falia Haripura, Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-394270. Pan No. Actps 6533 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh K Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 69A

opined that the explanation tendered was unsubstantiated. Consequently, he treated the sum of ₹9,38,500/- deposited in Sutex Co-operative Bank Ltd. as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, while granting relief in respect of ₹2,00,000/- and ₹1,000/- deposited in Bank of India

Sandipkumar Manubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned

ITA 596/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sandipkumar Manubhai Patel, Income-Tax Department Ward B-42, Sneh Milan Society, 1(1), Chikvadi Nana Varachha, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Hari Kunj, Surat-395006. Station Road, Bharuch-356069. Pan No. Bfbpp 1199 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 253(5)Section 69A

Sandipkumar Manubhai Patel Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

Devendra Jagjivan Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 586/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Devendra Jagjivan Patel, Ito-3(2)(2), 30, Tribhovan Nagar Soc, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Akhahand College, Ved Road, Vs. Ward 3(2)(1), Surat-395004. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Ahnpp 6293 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate
Section 115BSection 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 35,39, 105/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I T Act 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

Jagdish Solanki, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer Jhabua, Jhabua

ITA 169/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 1237/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari Ito, Ward-1 3, Rabarivas, Palaj Vs. Mehsana. Mehsana 384 410 Gujarat. Pan : Bwgpr 0788 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 226(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

regarding the nature and source of such credits, the AO invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act and treated the same as unexplained money belonging to the assessee. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.54,69,131/- was made to the total income. The total assessed income was thus determined ... performing transfer transactions on behalf of villagers. The AR clarified that the entries in the assessee’s bank account, which were treated as unexplained money by the Assessing Officer, were in fact mere pass-through transactions undertaken in the capacity of a Business Correspondent and did not represent the assessee

Farida Aboushair, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 987/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. Joseph Varghese, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

judgment u/s 144 of the Act on 28.9.2019 by adding entire credits into bank account amounting to Rs.2,10,88,040/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO passed u/s 144 of the Act dated 28.9.2019, the assessee preferred