“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

Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba, Rohtak vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4564/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4564/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1238, Subhash Nagar, Ward-50(3), Rohtak, Haryana-124001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpl0050C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1076483764 (1) Dated 27.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

relevant previous year. And that his reassessment framed on 29.12.2019 ended up in making 2 Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba twin additions of unexplained money u/s 69A amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- and disallowance of cost of improvement to the tune of Rs.20,23,447/-; respectively. There is further no dispute

Devi Dutt Agarwal, Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer Sitapur New, Sitapur

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

ITA 103/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 69Section 69A

cash deposits made by the assessee in F.Y. 2016-17 with the cash deposits made in the F.Y. 2015-16, assessed these deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. In the absence of any response by the assessee, the ld. AO did not restrict ... possession to demonstrate that the deposits in the stated bank account were in fact the turnover of the assessee’s business and were not unexplained money under section 69A. It was, therefore, prayed that considering the circumstances of the assessee, the assessee may kindly be given an opportunity to submit

Bollineni Gurappa Naidu, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 692/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Nabeel Saad, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 69A

Rs.2,38,39,000/- during the period 15.9.2014 to 2.11.2015 could not be established by the assessee and accordingly treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.1 With regard to claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, the AO held that the assessee had neither ... additions: Sri Bollineni Gurappa Naidu, Bangalore Page 4 of 6 a) Denial of exemption u/s 54 of the Act Rs.1,39,67,347/- b) Unexplained money added u/s 69A of the Act Rs.2,38,39,000/- 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed

Damodar Reddy Marupuru, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Nabeel Saad, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

assessee furnished the details as called for from time to time. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment by making the following additions: a) Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act – Rs.25,00,000/- b) Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act -Rs.17,49,325/- Total: -Rs.42,49,325/- Damodar Reddy

Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 855/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt.V. Koteshwaramma, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act on 28.11.2019, treating the entire cash deposit of Rs.17,25,929/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Jitendra Singh, Bijnor vs. Income Tax Officer, Bijnor

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhasstt. Year : 2015-16 Jitendra Singh, Vs. Acit/Jcit(Appeals) C/O S R Agarwalla & Co., Ca Faridabad / Nfac Shop No. 7, Kisan Inter College Market, Meerut-Karnal Road, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh-246776 (Pan: Ezaps4872M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Manish Singh, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit (A), Faridabad Dated 27.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16 On The Solitary Issue Of Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Information Reported In Aims Module Of Itba That The Assessee Had Deposited More Than Rs. 10 Lacs In Different Saving Bank Accounts Maintained By Him During The F.Y. 2014-15 Relevant To Ay 2015-16. A Query Letter As Well As A Notice U/S. 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee Asking Him To Furnish The Source Of Income & Credit

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 69A

cash deposit in his bank account, the addition of Rs. 2 | P a g e 13,00,000/- was sustained on account of unexplained money by the AO. Aggrieved, the action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Heard the rival contentions and perused ... income based on information regarding cash deposits in the Appellant's bank account. In the assessment order, the AO treated these cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, without adequately considering the Appellant's submissions and evidence. The Assesse duly explained during the assessment proceedings that

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 383/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

considering that the AO failed to treat aggregate amount of Rs. 286050 given by the assessee to M/s. National Shroff during the year as unexplained money y/s. 69A of the Act. And not charge tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Hence notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued by Ld.PCIT

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 380/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 378/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

Sidhhivinayak Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1536/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1536/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs Ito, Ward-1(4) Sidhhivinayak Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Kolhapur Maryadit, A/P Kodoli Panhala, Kolhapur-416231 Maharashtra Pan-Aaeas6278B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee is a Society and assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 has been framed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 3,00,000/- and also estimated income @ 8% of the gross receipts calculated

Jagveer Singh, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satna

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

ITA 11/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Jagveer Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Bhiyamau Khohi Thana, Ward-1, Satna Baraunda, Satna, M.P. Pan:Eneps0024R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act On 20.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ex-Party Order Passed U/S Rs. 144 For Ay 2018-19 On 20.03.2023 By Faceless Centre Holding Cash Deposits To The Extent Of Rs. 1,76,85,400/-Deposited In Bank Accounts As Unexplained Cash & Thereby Making Addition Of 1,76,85,400/- Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ex-Party Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed For Non Consideration Of Material On Record & Additions Made Of Rs 1,76,85,400/- Is Illegal In Want Of Non-Application Of Principles Of Natural Justice 3. Without Prejudice:-The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Party & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer. The Ex-Party Order Passed By Learned Assessing Officer Being Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Inito Was Required To Be Quashed Instead Of Being Confirmed

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 147

accordingly, he added back the cash deposit of Rs. 1,76,85,400/-, that had been made in the accounts of the assessee, as unexplained money under section 69A. 4. Aggrieved with the said orders, the assessee filed an appeal with the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Here

Shri Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, International Taxation, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.89/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja Income Tax Officer Int. 202, Harmony Heights, Capital Road, बनाम Tax), Gandhidham, Income- Science City, Ahmedabad-380 060 Tax Office, Amruta Estate /Vs. Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Ahtpv 3289 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Final Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, (After Incorporating Findings Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2 Mumbai, Dated 29.12.2023), Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) .

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

Thane. 7. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.95,222/- treating the deposits in HDFC Bank account as alleged unexplained money u/ 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 only on the basis of order dtd. 29/12/2023 passed by the Hon’ble DRP, Mumbai. 8. The assessee ... addition on account of Purchase of Immovable Property, Rs.32,50,000/-. The assessing officer also made addition of Rs.4,03,914/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, which was rectified by the honourable DRP to Rs.95,222/-instead of Rs.4,03,914/-. 10.Aggrieved

Nimmana Narasimharao, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

ITA 50/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 155BSection 69A

sustaining the addition of Rs.65,50,000 made by the assessing office u/s 69A of the Act by considring the cash deposits as unexplained money. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer is not jusitifed in levying tax at increased rate ... cash deposits of Rs.10,49,000/- made in the assessee’s bank account during the demonetization period as having been sourced out of his unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 9. Thereafter, the AO observed that though the return of income filed by the assessee was to be treated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Apparao Mukkamala, Usa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

handwritten scribblings, therefore, the cash entries must also be genuine. Accordingly, the A.O. added Rs. 3,75,00,000/- as the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A and determined his income vide order passed under section 147 r.w section 144C(3) of the Act, dated ... said count. 20. Apropos the CIT(A) view that as Section 69A requires that the assessee is found to be the owner of unexplained money or valuable article or thing, therefore, as in the present case no such money or valuable article or thing was found in the possession

Gandem Nageswara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

ITA 304/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

31/01/2024 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,08,79,650/- after making two additions, viz. (i). addition u/s 69A of the unexplained money deposited during the subject year in bank accounts: Rs. 1,08,55,986/-; and (ii). addition of interest income: Rs. - 23,666/-. 4 Gandem

Lalit Kumar Jain, Alwar vs. ITO Ward, 1(2), Alwar

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

ITA 1126/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in making addition u/s 69 of Rs. 18,56,810/- being alleged unexplained money. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the fact of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing ... arranged trading network and thus he made addition of Rs.18,56,810/- u/s 69 of the Act by treating this amount as unexplained money. The relevant observation of the AO at page 50 of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- 6 SHRI LALIT KUMAR JAIN VS ITO, WARD

Hira, Dausa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dausa

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

ITA 34/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ghanshyam Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234Section 69A

Credit entries, including Cash deposits, appearing in the Bank Account as tabulated in the body of the Order (Table 4) is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the 4 HIRA VS ITO, WARD -DAUSA assessee. The Tots

Rahul Arun Mandlik, Pune vs. ITO WD- 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 1984/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1984/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rahul Arun Mandlik, V The Income Tax Officer, Sr No.34/3/2, Kashi S Ward-5(2), Pune. Vishveshewar Apartment, Nt Yenpure Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043. Pan: Bmbpm1461M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt.Sonal L Sonkavde – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 16.12.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

assessing officer has eared in law and in fact made an addition in total income of Rs 2,01,25,740/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A. 2. The learned assessing officer has eared in law and in fact made an addition in total income

Manisha Dhananjay Holkar, Nashik vs. Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1204/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

completed the re-assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 10.03.2024 by making addition of Rs.73,04,416/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Ch Marthanda Rao & Co, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

ITA 966/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 69A

neither furnished any documents or explanations, therefore, he was constrained to treat the aforementioned receipts/income as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), NFAC ... initially named as M/s CMR Projects Ltd, which was subsequently renamed M/s Vensa Infrastructure Ltd., and the incomes/receipts assessed in its hands as its unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act had been accounted for by the successor company in its return of income for the year under consideration