← 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

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Subhash Road Dehadun vs. M/S Times Square, Sahastradhara Road

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 69A

case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,24,34,000/- made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 accruing to the assessee due to unaccounted cash deposited by it in its bank account ... appellant's given written submissions, statement of facts and grounds of appeal have been carefully perused. Vide above Grounds, the appellant challenged addition towards Unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act. During assessment proceedings, the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence towards cash deposit in bank account. Therefore

Sunilkumar Ichhubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 52/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

action of the AO in making addition of Rs.12,98,000/- on account of cash deposit made during the demonetization period treated as alleged unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well ... making addition of Rs.57,04,300/- on account of cash deposit made during the year other than demonetization period treated as alleged unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

evidence, and as held in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349 SC) the burden lies on the department to prove ownership of unexplained money. Further, in CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570 SC) the Supreme Court clarified that additions under Section 69A are discretionary and cannot

Rahul Gupta, Hardoi vs. ITO, Ward 3(), Hardoi

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

ITA 197/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Pandey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 69o

account, considering that he had not filed his return of income and therefore, he held that a sum of Rs. 7,66,500/- was unexplained money under section 69A. Thereafter, after allowing expenditure claimed of Rs. 6,46,797/- in the profit & loss account, he brought

Madresa Mohammadiyan and Panjataniya, Dahod Gujarat vs. CIT(E), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1118/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Madressa Mohammadiyn & Cit(Exemption) Panjataniya, Madresa Raildings Nehru Bridge B/H. Tower Talav Road, Dahod. Ahmedabad. Pan : Brdmo 8620 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xii)Section 263

total credits of Rs.2,58,59,034/- as against declared receipts of Rs.1,63,46,122/-, and proposed to treat the excess deposits/credits as unexplained money under section 69A in the absence of satisfactory explanation. 2.3 The Assessing Officer proposed disallowance of exemption under section 11 on the ground that

Mayank Naginbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 768/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

explanation of past savings was also not supported by evidence. Consequently, the entire cash deposits of Rs. 15,19,000/- were treated as unexplained money under section I.T.A No. 768/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Mayank Naginbhai Patel vs. ITO 69A of the Act and added to the income ... where possession of household gold and customary cash gifts on social occasions was common, and that the deposits represented legitimate family resources rather than unexplained money. The assessee also contested the reliance of the AO on the Inspector’s report, pointing out that the inspector had visited the wrong premises

Mrs Neha Vitthal Dimble, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1223/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69ASection 69C

learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank account of assessee as unexplained money under section 69A r. w. s.115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in making addition ... income of Rs.83,31,620/- by making addition of - (i) Rs.66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A; (ii) Rs.14,08,073/- in respect of purchase of motor vehicle treating the same as unexplained expenditure

Daamodaran Malarkodi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2036/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2036/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A HIFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 17.12.2019, assessing the total income at Rs.48,93,197/- on account of addition of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Vedha, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1924/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayvedha, I.T.O., 3/144, Checkpost Ward-3, Vs. Ward-1, Nallur, Hosur, Hosur. Krishnagiri-635103 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Afopv 8990 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

cash flow arrived at by her. The AO rejected the submissions and treated the total deposits amounting to Rs 26,89,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A and also invoked the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred

Avalamurthy Shiva Kumar, Bengaluru Rural vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 593/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Avalamurthy Shiva Kumar, Vs. Ito, Rajaghattarajaghatta Post, Ward – 7(2)(3), Doddaballapura Tk, Bangalore. Bangalore Rural – 561 203. Karnataka. Pan : Batpa 2333 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhusudhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Madhusudhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 136Section 147Section 148Section 69A

there was cash deposit of Rs.98,46,500/-. For want of explanation from the assessee’s side, the entire cash deposit was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and section 115BBE of the Act was applied and Order was passed on 22.02.2023 under section 147 r.w.s

Ashish Shashikant Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1400/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Ashish Shashikant Choksi, Asst. Cit Central Circle-6(2), 58, Presidency Society, Mangalik, Room No. 450, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 7Th N S Road, Jamnabhai School, Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), West, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aebpc 1539 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 69A

being cash found at the appellant premises as being cash found at the appellant premises as being cash found at the appellant premises as unexplained money by invoking section u/s 69A of Income Tax lained money by invoking section u/s 69A of Income Tax lained money by invoking section ... both the seized and the unseized portions, comprising both the seized and the unseized portions, comprising both the seized and the unseized portions, as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, thereby as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, thereby as unexplained money under Section

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

ITA 2506/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 148ASection 151

years under consideration. During the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-17, the A.O. had reasons to believe that the Assessee has unexplained money of Rs.46,40,000/- and for Assessment Year 2017-18, the A.O. had reasons to believe that the Assessee had Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.1

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

ITA 2505/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 148ASection 151

years under consideration. During the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-17, the A.O. had reasons to believe that the Assessee has unexplained money of Rs.46,40,000/- and for Assessment Year 2017-18, the A.O. had reasons to believe that the Assessee had Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.1

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 2447/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

Section 115BSection 68

demonetized notes after 8.11.2016 in violation of the notifications issued by RBL. 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

Ramesh Goswami, Singrauli vs. Income Tax Officer, Singrauli

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

ITA 58/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

should be deleted. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of? 5,74,67,975/- as unexplained money under section 69A, despite the fact that the said amount was duly recorded in the books of accounts. In the absence of any justification ... Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of cash withdrawals from the appellant's own bank account and its subsequent redeposit as unexplained money. Therefore, the addition made is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT (A) rejected the appeal without providing sufficient

Mahendra Kumar Dheer, Tikamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Tikamgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Mahendra Kumar Dheer, V. Income Tax Office Ward Amar Shanti Vinod Kunj Tigela, Near Utsav Bhawan, Opp Tikamgarh, Opp. Supermarket Collectorate Jhansi Road, Ganjipura Jabalpur-472001. Tikamgarh-472001. Pan: Arhpd3516G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/-, made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act 1961, as unexplained money on account of cash deposited in the bank account when the source of such cash deposit was explained with supporting evidences and therefore the addition as unexplained money

Saraswati Shishu Mandir Parichalana Samiti, Hatiatangar vs. ITO Exemption, Cuttack

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

ITA 445/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.445/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs Ito (Exemption), Cuttack Parichalana Samiti, Hati Nagar, Kendujhargarh, Kendujhar Sadar, Kendujhar 758001 Pan No. : Aajas 6194 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dr. Sanjay Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ld. Addl/Jcit (A)-1,Nashik Order Dated 05/06/2025 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10525/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Is Running An Educational Institution In Kendujhar. It Was The Submission That The During The Demonetization Period The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,33,280/- In Cash In His Bank Account. It Was Further Submission That The Sbn Deposited During The Demonetization Period Was To An Extent Of Rs.4,98,500/-. It Was The Further Submission That The Assessee Had Total Receipts Of Rs.1,54,00,000/-. It Was The Submission That The Ao Did Not Accept The Contentions Of The Assessee In Respect Of The Demonized

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Sanjay BehuraFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R

accept the contentions of the assessee in respect of the demonized 2 currency deposited in the bank account and has stated the same as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. It was the submission that he had no objection if the issue is restored to the file

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.427/LKW/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes while CO No

ITA 427/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur, U.P. 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.26/Lkw/2024 In A.Y. 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 10.05.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Passed On 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Proceedings Made U/S 147 Is Not In Accordance With Law. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Deposited During The F.Y.2016-17 Without Appreciating That The Ao Has 1 Co No.26/Lkw/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 deposited during the F.Y.2016-17 without appreciating that the AO has 1 CO No.26/LKW/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Deputy Commissioner Of Techno Industries, Vs. Income Tax, Plot No.613, Phase Iv Gidc, Circle 3(1)(1), Vatva, Ahmedabad-382245. Ahmedabad. [Pan :Aacft1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

original loan was a bogus accommodation entry, its repayment was also not genuine, and thus treated the repayment amount of Rs.51,12,192/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal

Ganpatbhai Chaturbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1342/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

provided copy of reason for reopening of assessment. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding addition of alleged unexplained money of Rs.14,50,000/- 6. Appellant craves Liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any or all any grounds of appeal before final hearing